Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow

MERSEY TUNNEL BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS BILL

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

TEIGNMOUTH AND SHALDON BRIDGE BILL

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM BILL

URMSTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

Read Second time, and committed.

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Richmond Park

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Works the present position of the right of way between East Sheen and the Ham, Coombe and Kingston Gates of Richmond Park.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): Pedestrian rights of way used to exist from East Sheen to Ham, Coombe and Kingston, but all traces of the routes followed have disappeared.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman disputes the existence of a right of way, or merely that he requires assistance in ascertaining the exact route?

Mr. Key: I am not disputing the right of way. I said that rights of way used to exist but that all trace of the routes have now disappeared. That is all I can say.

Sites, London

Mr. Molson: asked the Minister of Works for what Government Departments he is seeking to acquire sites in Central London and the suburbs; what will be the area of accommodation in each case; over how many years the construction will be spread; and how this expenditure will fit into the Government's investment programme.

Mr. Key: Further sites are required in London to complete the programme of office building which is necessary to enable my Ministry to release premises now held on requisition for office purposes. This programme amounts to about 5½ million square feet, of which 2½ million is in Central London and 3 million in the suburbs. Rather over half of this is already in hand. The whole programme will be spread over about four years. Detailed allocations of the buildings are not yet settled. The expenditure on this programme is within the limits imposed by the Government's investment programme.

Mr. Molson: Could the Minister give us further particulars of the additional programme which has already been undertaken?

Mr. Key: Not without notice.

Mr. Molson: As a matter of fact, I did give the notice in my Question. If I may, therefore, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the Question, and the Minister will perhaps give me the full information which has not been given in his answer.

Government Buildings (Car Parking)

Mr. Challen: asked the Minister of Works what provision for the parking of motor cars has been made in connection with the Government buildings which are in the course of erection between Whitehall and the Embankment.

Mr. Key: It is proposed to provide parking space for cars used on official business and for visitors' cars. The private roadways on the site will provide space for some 50 or 60 cars on this basis.

Hotels, Cornwall (Repair Licences)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Works how many licences he has refused during 1948 to hotel proprietors when applying for improvements in order to cater for the tourist trade.

Mr. Key: Eight during 1948, out of 118 received.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

Taxicabs, New Palace Yard

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Works whether he has yet come to any decision regarding the erection of a prominent sign outside the gates of New Palace Yard to indicate that a taxicab is required at the Member's entrance.

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. This matter has been discussed fully with the authorities of the House, and the police, and it is proposed to instal a beacon light on the top of the shelter in the North-West corner of New Palace Yard. A louder bell has already been installed.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the fact that early instalment of this sign will save hon. Members much time and many chills, will the right hon. Gentleman expedite it, as it has already been hanging fire for four months?

Mr. Key: It has been hanging fire as a result of discussions which have had to take place. Now that the decision has been come to, we shall put it into operation at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Assheton: May the delay be due to the fact that taxi fares are about the only prices that have not been raised since before the war?

Mr. Key: That matter has nothing to do with the sign that I, as Minister of Works, have to put up in New Palace Yard.

New House of Commons

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Works whether he will now give a definite forecast of the date when the new Commons Chamber will be ready for occupation.

Mr. Key: The work is progressing according to programme, and there is


every hope that the Chamber will be ready for occupation after the Summer Recess of 1950.

Sir T. Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are hordes of Socialist supporters behind him, most Liberals and a few Conservatives who would greatly value sitting for the first time, and the last time, in the new House? Will he try to have it ready for occupation before the General Election?

Mr. Key: It may be an even greater thrill for new Members in 1950 to be the first in there. The hon. and gallant Member will be surprised when the result comes.

Mr. Viant: asked the Minister of Works if, in view of his decision that the oak panelling of the new House of Commons is to be stained grey, he will arrange for one of the small Committee Rooms of the House to be so treated, and thereby enable Members to judge as to the suitability of the colour.

Mr. Key: On account of the business of the House, it would not be possible to free a Committee Room before next July. I shall be happy to show my hon. Friend a sample, but I would remind him that the colour was approved by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Rebuilding) and that samples have been shown to Members on several occasions.

Mr. Viant: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that Members of Parliament meeting in the new House will not disapprove of the colour? Would it not be an advantage if some part of the building could be set aside for the purpose of giving hon. Members a sample?

Mr. Key: I have said that samples have already been seen by a number of hon. Members and that the colour has been approved by the Select Committee. I see no reason why there should be any dissatisfaction.

Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister assure the House that the grey with which the panelling will be stained will remain the same colour, because chemical actions take place and the colour may be quite different within two or three years? Why not stick to natural oak and treat it properly?

Mr. Key: I understand that the experts are satisfied about the permanence of the stain.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERMUDA (U.S.A. BASE)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Supreme Court of the U.S. has ruled that the Bermuda base leased to U.S.A. by the United Kingdom is a U.S. possession; and whether he will make it clear that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to accept this ruling.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): On 6th December the Supreme Court of the United States gave a ruling that certain United States legislation was applicable to the leased area in Bermuda. Implications of this ruling are being studied but I should emphasise that the court made it clear that there was no intention to query British sovereignty.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Whatever the Court suggested, is not the obvious implication that the American court were saying that this is American territory? Will the right hon. Gentleman be at pains to resist any such encroachment, however indirect the implication may be.

Mr. McNeil: I should not like to put my legal opinion against that of the hon. Gentleman, however much I would like to put other opinions of mine, but it seemed to me that the Court expressly reserved the position of British sovereignty.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "reserved" that they pronounced no opinion? Surely that is hardly satisfactory, in view of the pledge given to Bermuda at the time of the lease that there would be no abatement of British sovereignty?

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government may be depended upon to see that the pledge is upheld if it is likely to be in danger. I have no reason to believe that it is in danger. I should add that one of the parties to the action has asked for a re-hearing.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May we take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will not accept the decision of the Supreme Court as involving any variation of the conditions on which these bases were leased?

Mr. McNeil: I do not see that the action in the Court sought to vary the


conditions of the leases. The action in the Court dealt with certain conditions of working in the leased area.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does the decision mean anything more than that American law will prevail as long as and no longer than the base is leased to the United States of America?

Mr. McNeil: Since the action is to be reheard, I should not care to commit myself on what will be a subject for the Court.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the effects of this decision is very greatly to increase the wage rates of certain employees in this American possession? Will he consider representing to his right hon. Friend that the wage rates of other Colonial peoples in the same area should be increased in the same way?

Mr. McNeil: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be so impressed by the support given by the hon. Member to the American way of life that he would take great notice of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS (RUSSIAN-BORN WIVES)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason advice has been given by His Majesty's Ambassador to the wives of British subjects, detained in Soviet Russia, that they should divorce their British husbands.

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Ambassador, when pressed for an opinion, felt obliged in November last to give confidentially to two of the wives in their own interests, the grave advice to which the hon. Member refers. At the time they were suffering constant persecution at the hands of the Soviet authorities and had indeed recently been driven to such a state of despair that they had each attempted to commit suicide. Sir Maurice Peterson had written to Mr. Molotov on 22nd October to complain that the molestation to which the wives were subjected was liable to cause a tragedy, but this complaint unfortunately had little or no effect on the Soviet authorities. It

was impossible for him to do more, or to encourage the wives with any hope of an early change in Soviet policy towards them. He took, therefore, what he believed to be the kindest course in the circumstances.

Mr. Hollis: While I entirely appreciate the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, is he aware that I have in my possession a letter from one of the ladies which says:
The Embassy say they cannot help us much and that it may be much better for us to take a divorce. That does not make any impression at all. It just makes me more determined to go on. I will not give up whatever happens.
In view of the fact that one of these gallant ladies takes that definite attitude, would it not be better to allow her to take her own decision in these extraordinarily difficult circumstances than for the Ambassador to give her advice?

Mr. McNeil: I am quite certain that the Government will not seek to influence the lady. I should add that His Majesty's Ambassador, although his advice was not accepted, will continue to offer the utmost protection to these women in the dreadful and melancholy circumstances in which they find themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRUSSELS TREATY (TEACHERS' COURSE)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the official communiqué of the Consultative Council of Western European Powers announces that the Cultural Committee will meet on 2nd August at Ashridge, Kent; whether he is aware that considerable inconvenience is likely to be caused to foreign delegates by the fact that Ashridge is not in Kent; and what steps he will take to have this corrected.

Mr. McNeil: The hon. and gallant Member is, I think, referring to a course for teachers which is due to meet on 2nd August, and not to the Cultural Committee. The Permanent Commission of the Brussels Treaty are taking steps to see that all concerned with the course are aware that Ashridge is in Hertfordshire. I regret the mistake made.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what basis it is proposed that the British delegates to the consultative body of the proposed Council of Europe will be appointed.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British delegation to the European Assembly will be composed on an all-party basis; and whether he will give any other details about its composition.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how he proposes that British representatives to the European Assembly shall be chosen; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. McNeil: No decision has yet been taken on the composition of the British delegation to the Council of Europe. The constitution of the Council itself has not yet been determined. A statement however will be made as soon as is appropriate.

Mr. Fletcher: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is intended, as far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, that the decision in the Assembly will be taken on the basis of the majority of those present and voting?

Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the Minister of State ask the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to give an undertaking that the Chancellor of The Duchy of Lancaster will not be a delegate?

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir.

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how soon a decision on this matter is likely to be taken by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. McNeil: I regret that I cannot give an accurate answer. As the right hon. Gentleman understands, this is quite complicated, since it has to go back to Governments and then Governments must offer their view to a conference of all the Governments concerned.

Mr. Benn Levy: As this is a decision of far-reaching constitutional importance, is it one which the House will have an

opportunity of debating, before it is a fait accompli?

Mr. McNeil: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Butler: With regard to the constitution of the delegation to the Assembly, I understand that His Majesty's Government had a definite view which did not prevail and that a different view has prevailed, and that the report has now been issued. His Majesty's Government must therefore have had definite ideas as to how their delegation was to be constituted. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer on this subject as soon as he reasonably can.

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what will be the powers and functions of the proposed Council of Europe; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. McNeil: Agreement was reached at the last meeting of the Consultative Council of the Brussels Treaty on certain principles which should govern the constitution of the proposed Council of Europe, and the Permanent Commission of the Brussels Treaty is engaged on the basis of those principles in drawing up rather more detailed recommendations which, once approved by Governments, will be put forward as a basis of discussion in a wider conference of European States. The extent to which the Permanent Commission has progressed with this work has been already explained in a communiqué issued last Saturday, and nothing can usefully be added at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Reparations (Allocations)

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to give an assurance that no equipment dismantled from Krupps works will in future be sent to Czechoslovakia.

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend has reconsidered this subject. However, His Majesty's Government are bound by the Paris Agreement on Reparations of


January, 1946, to accept the allocations of reparations plants made by the Assembly of the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency. The Czechoslovakian Government is a member of the Agency and has not broken the Paris Agreement. His Majesty's Government could not in any event take unilateral action to frustrate the allocation by the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency to the Czechoslovak Government of plant lawfully at the disposal of the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency Assembly by forcibly withholding it.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is it not a preposterous state of affairs whereby His Majesty's Government try to keep to the letter of all these agreements which are broken consistently upon the other side, and does not the Minister of State agree that the sending of this equipment to a country like Czechoslovakia, within the Russian sphere of influence, is equivalent to sending it to the Soviet Union? Will reconsideration be given to this matter?

Mr. McNeil: However unfortunate the consequences may be—and I can understand the viewpoint of the hon. Gentleman—the fact is that His Majesty's Government have given their word, in company with 18 other European nations, and we feel that we cannot depart from that bargain into which we entered.

Mr. Platts-Mills: While my right hon. Friend so readily understands the point of view of the hon. Member opposite, will he not also agree that the part that Czechoslovak industries have played in this transaction includes the sending of some thousands of repaired railway engines and items of rolling stock to Western Germany?

Mr. R. A. Butler: While we want to examine the detail of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has just given, may I ask him to be more explicit about the future sending of such material to Czechoslovakia, or whether his reply refers only to past decisions?

Mr. McNeil: My reply does refer only to past decisions, but I should be honest and add that, of course, these decisions will necessitate the movement of material for some considerable time.

Mr. Butler: But can we have an assurance that no future decision will be

taken without information being given to this House?

Mr. McNeil: I should like notice of that Question.

Mr. Molson: Does this line of reasoning also apply to the sending of equipment to Russia itself?

Mr. McNeil: No, that is quite a separate matter.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Send it all to Spain.

Refugee (Prison Sentence)

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what agreement Karl Walter, a refugee from the Soviet zone of Germany, has been sentenced to one month's imprisonment without trial at Homburg for having refused a Soviet direction to work in the uranium mines at Aue.

Mr. McNeil: This man was arrested by the German authorities in the British zone in accordance with an old German Procedural Law providing that sentences of imprisonment imposed by an authority in one part of Germany can, at the request of that authority, be carried out by the authorities in any other area to which the convicted person may have fled. Normally nowadays German courts are left without interference to deal with German citizens. In this case, however, we felt that an injustice was being done and as a result of our representations the man was released on 31st January.

Occupation Statute

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is anticipated that the Parliamentary Council sitting in Bonn will be informed of the terms of the Occupation Statute for Western Germany.

Mr. McNeil: The Parliamentary Council in Bonn will have the opportunity of discussing the terms of the Occupation Statute as soon as a final version of the Statute has been agreed upon by the Governments of the United Kingdom, France and the United States.

Mr. Bramall: Can my right hon. Friend give some indication when these discussions between the Powers concerned will result in an Occupation Statute, the lack of which is holding up the whole discussions at Bonn?

Mr. McNeil: The conversations are going along satisfactorily and it is hoped that very soon the three Powers will be in a position to offer an agreed version to Bonn.

Draft Restitution Ordinance

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the difficulties in promulgating the Restitution Ordinance in Germany relating to the property taken away from German Jews and anti-Nazis by the former Nazi Government; and how many claims have already been received.

Mr. McNeil: As regards the first part of this Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 25th January. As regards the second part of the Question, by 31st December, 1948, 18,663 claims had been received from persons resident in the British zone and they are being examined. Rather more than half of the large number of claims already processed have been found to relate to property outside the British zone and not therefore in any case subject to the Ordinance to which the hon. Member's Question refers.

Mr. Piratin: With regard to the first part of the Question and the first part of the answer, is it not the case that on the last occasion the question came up, all the Minister was able to say was that further revision of the draft Restitution Ordinance had proved necessary and, as I asked what was the difficulty which created the necessity for further revision, can he give an answer?

Mr. McNeil: The answer would be very complex. The type of property for example, for which no instruction has been given, has meant that very careful drafting must take place. But I should add that despite the delay—and I apologise for the delay—examination of the claims is steadily going forward, so that it will be possible to act quite quickly when, in the very near future, the ordinance is agreed upon.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY AND AUSTRIA (COMMISSIONS' STAFF)

Mr. Raikes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the number of Control Commission and

Allied Commission of Austria officials employed by the prisoner of war and displaced persons branches in Germany and Austria; and the total cost involved as a result to the International Refugee Organisation and to the British taxpayer, respectively.

Mr. McNeil: The number is 630 in Germany and 40 in Austria and the monthly cost of this staff is about £30,000 and £2,000 respectively. The International Refugee Organisation reimburses His Majesty's Government, except for that proportion which is incurred in Austria in looking after persons who are not eligible for assistance by the International Refugee Organisation.

Mr. Raikes: Arising out of that answer, in view of the magnitude of the problem of displaced persons, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would be possible in the future for it to become the undivided responsibility of the International Refugee Organisation?

Mr. McNeil: Of course, we will continue to consider that, but it was considered with the I.R.O., and it was thought that this was the most effective way administratively, and the cheapest method of correctly administering and discharging these responsibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (BRITISH ASSETS)

Mr. Frederic Harris: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action is being taken to safeguard the interests of British companies whose assets were appropriated by the Jewish authorities in Palestine after the outbreak of hostilities.

Mr. McNeil: A number of firms and persons have intimated that they may have claims to advance. Their attention has been drawn to a notice published in the Board of Trade Journal of 2nd October, 1948, in which it was stated that "His Majesty's Government will make every effort to ensure that the proper claims of British subjects are expeditiously dealt with by whatever authority becomes responsible in Palestine." Meanwhile they were advised to "prepare their cases with all possible care" with a view to eventual "presentation of all proper claims to the appropriate authorities in Palestine."
Following de facto recognition of the Government of Israel, the whole question of claims and of British property interests will now be considered in connection with various other financial and economic questions which will require settlement between His Majesty's Government and the Israeli Government.

Mr. Harris: Now that an appointment has been made, can guidance be given to the companies concerned so that this can be followed up most energetically? Many companies are in deep distress over the situation, as can be fully understood.

Mr. McNeil: We should be glad to help, but I should not think any further instructions than those issued in the publication to which I have referred are needed at this time.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: When the companies in question have formulated claims, will the Foreign Office assist those companies in forwarding their claims, or will they be dealt with by the Foreign Office itself?

Mr. McNeil: We shall be glad to advise, but I am told that the usual procedure in such circumstances is that the Government of Israel would set up an agency through which dealings would be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC PACT (U.S.S.R.)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the Governments involved in the present negotiations, that an invitation be extended to the U.S.S.R. to join in the proposed North Atlantic Pact.

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir, and for this reason. The negotiation of a North Atlantic Pact would never have been necessary had not all attempts to organise collective security directly under the United Nations been made impossible (temporarily it is to be hoped) by the obstruction, suspicion and non-co-operation of the Soviet Government.

Mr. Platts-Mills: As my right hon. Friend faces it so frankly now that this is really simply an aggressive anti-Soviet pact—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—for war labelled North Atlantic but extending,

as we can all see, from the Pacific all the way to the South Seas and made in complete departure from our obligation at U.N.O., had he not better pack up the whole thing?

Mr. McNeil: It is not in contradiction to our obligation, nor has the term "collective security" in the history of our party—the party to which the hon. Gentleman belonged—meant anything other than defence.

Sir T. Moore: Will the Minister of State agree that this Question suggests the most up-to-date method of using a Trojan horse?

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Would it not be a good deal more useful and logical if Russia and the States of Eastern Europe were invited to the proposed Council of Europe, about which the Foreign Secretary was so deplorably negative last week?

Brigadier Head: Would the Minister make it quite clear that the North Atlantic Pact requires no crypto-Allies?

Oral Answers to Questions — CARDINAL MINDSZENTY (TRIAL)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action he has taken, and proposes to take in conformity with the recent Treaty of Peace between this country and Hungary concerning the arrest and trial of Cardinal Mindszenty.

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take under the recent Peace Treaty with Hungary with regard to the arrest and pending trial of the Cardinal Primate of Hungary.

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend addressed a Note to the Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs on 4th February objecting to the refusal of permission for a member of His Majesty's Legation to attend the trial of Cardinal Mindszenty and formally reserved the rights of His Majesty's Government under the Treaty of Peace with Hungary. What further action my right hon. Friend may take must depend on the results of the trial.

Mr. Teeling: In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary told us last Wednesday that he was being kept in immediate contact with what was going on, can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information that has been received from the Ambassador as to what is happening at the present moment?

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman doubtless knows that the court has adjourned and will announce the sentences. There is nothing I could add to the reports that have been made available on the conduct of the trial.

Mr. Teeling: Has the right hon. Gentleman received nothing?

Sir P. Hannon: May I ask the Minister of State whether, in view of the profound feeling that animates all the people of this country at the present moment on the possible sentence on the Cardinal at Budapest tomorrow, he would not send to the Hungarian Government from the Foreign Office the strongest possible representations that the present situation be reconsidered in relation to the Cardinal?

Mr. McNeil: I am sure that the Hungarian Government is in no doubt about the attitude of His Majesty's Government and of this House and of great sections of the British population upon this subject.

Mr. Warbey: Has my right hon. Friend seen the well-balanced articles on Cardinal Mindszenty by "The Times" Budapest correspondent and the full, uncensored reports from the same source; can he say whether he has any information which differs materially from that given in these reports and, in particular, whether he has any specific evidence that in this particular case the Human Rights Clause of the Peace Treaty has been violated?

Mr. McNeil: I think it is unfair and inaccurate to separate the trial from the proceedings which preceded it. I should think it would be beyond doubt that the fashion in which these prosecutions were made and approached, did directly conflict with the obligations of the Hungarian Government under the Treaty.

Mr. Teeling: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that since 4th February he has received no communica-

tions on this subject from His Majesty's Minister; or, if he has, can he let the House know about them?

Mr. McNeil: It is quite obvious that we have received communications, and indeed, in response to one, we made a direct protest to the Hungarian Government.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: If my right hon. Friend had made up his mind, and had let it be known that he had made up his mind, that this whole trial and the proceedings accompanying it are a breach of the treaty, is he surprised in those circumstances that the Hungarian Government hardly thinks that an observer from the British Legation would be impartial?

Mr. McNeil: I made it plain that the conduct of the trial is now under study and I have committed myself to no observations upon it.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who have compared photographs of Cardinal Mindszenty taken during the trial with those taken before the trial have no doubt that a great travesty of justice has taken place?

Mr. McNeil: I should, of course, agree that the attitude of the Cardinal before and during the trial is very surprising and very difficult to explain.

Mr. Warbey: Can my right hon. Friend be more specific and say in what particulars the proceedings before the trial were a violation of the Human Rights Clause of the treaty?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the attitude of His Majesty's Government limited to the expression of opinion, or are there any further steps which the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is possible to take?

Sir W. Smithers: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information from His Majesty's Minister in Budapest that Cardinal Mindszenty has been given a drug called actedron; or, if he has not, will he try to ascertain this, because it would explain the whole change of attitude of this unfortunate man?

Mr. McNeil: The answer to the first part of the question is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Blackburn: Will the Minister emphasise in this connection that, with the disappearance of the Democratic Party in Hungary, there is now no Parliamentary opposition left anywhere in the whole of Eastern Europe, except Greece?

Mr. Nicholson: May I have an answer to my question: Is the right hon. Gentleman's action limited to the expression of opinion?

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the provisions of the Peace Treaty between this country and Hungary, the Hungarian Government have given permission for an official observer to be present at the trial of Cardinal Mindszenty.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Hungarian Government has permitted His Majesty's Government to be represented by an observer at the trial of Cardinal Mindszenty; and what steps have been taken by his Department to be informed of the proceedings.

Mr. McNeil: The Hungarian Government have refused to provide facilities for a representative of His Majesty's Legation at Budapest to attend the trial of Cardinal Mindszenty. His Majesty's Minister at Budapest has, therefore, on the instructions of my right hon. Friend, addressed a Note to the Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs expressing the grave concern felt by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom at this act and warning the Hungarian Government that an adverse construction could not fail to be placed on it.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister convey to the Hungarian Government, particularly as they profess to be so concerned with public opinion in the West, the strong feelings of all sections of the community that their failure to admit a representative of His Majesty's Legation at Budapest creates the strongest suspicion in this country that the proceedings are spurious?

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Would the right hon. Gentleman take steps at the end of this trial to see that a full report is made to this House on what actually has taken place, not only at the trial but

before it, so that this House can come to a judgment on whether it is a spurious trial or not?

Mr. McNeil: I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider that suggestion.

Mr. Bramall: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what are the principles upon which His Majesty's Government determine, in each individual case of political trials, whether or not they ask to have an observer present; and would he bear in mind that there are a number of political trials in other countries—for instance, Greece and Spain—in which many hon. Members are interested?

Mr. McNeil: I could not, of course, give an adequate answer in this form, but it must be quite clear that where His Majesty's Government have treaty obligations we must seek to the fullest to meet these treaty obligations.

Mr. Teeling: Is it true that at present negotiations are taking place with Hungary for a trade agreement, and if that is so, under the circumstances would it not be possible to cease these negotiations for the time being?

Mr. Warbey: Since in this particular instance my right hon. Friend is resting his case on the question of treaty obligations, may I have an answer to the question which I put before, to which he has not replied?

Mr. Nicholson: May I have an answer also to my question: If treaty obligations are involved, is the action of His Majesty's Government limited to mere expressions of opinion? May I have an answer?

Mr. Henry Strauss: While the Hungarian Government were treating His Majesty's Government with contempt, was it desirable that His Majesty's Ministers should attend a reception at the Hungarian Legation in London?

Oral Answers to Questions — SIR OSWALD MOSLEY (ITALIAN DOCUMENTS)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further progress has been made in the research through the captured Italian documents and archives; what further evidence has emerged revealing the close


connection between Sir Oswald Mosley and the Italian Fascists; and whether he will publish this evidence.

Mr. McNeil: The position has not changed since I replied to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on 23rd February, 1948. The Italian documents are of less importance and are much less complete than the German Foreign Office documents and our resources for research are at present concentrated upon the latter.

Mr. Piratin: Could the Minister say how long it will be before these documents are published?

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry I could not.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSJORDAN (BRITISH TROOPS)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what form and by whom was the request of the Emir Abdulla to send British troops to Aqaba made to His Majesty's Government.

Mr. McNeil: As stated in the public announcement on 8th January, His Majesty's Government received the request to send British troops to Aqaba from the Transjordan Government under the terms of the Anglo-Transjordan Treaty of March, 1948. The request was made to His Majesty's Minister at Amman.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Can the right hon. Gentleman state in what form this request was made? The Question asks in what form it was made, but the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have dealt with that.

Mr. McNeil: In the normal form.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Groundnuts Scheme

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if he will publish a further review of the progress of the East African Groundnuts Scheme in similar form to Command Paper 7314 of January, 1948, so that hon. Members may study the facts in anticipation of an early Debate on the future of this scheme.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I am now ready to give the House a full progress report on the East African Groundnuts Scheme on any convenient day that may be chosen for this purpose. I do not, however, think that it would be advisable to issue a special White Paper in advance of the Overseas Food Corporation's regular annual report which will be submitted to Parliament under the provisions of the Overseas Resources Development Act, when the Corporation's accounts have been made up after the end of its first financial year on 31st March next.

Mr. Hurd: Does not the Minister consider that on this occasion it would be an advantage to the House to have full and reliable information about what has already gone on before we proceed to discuss the future of the scheme?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I do not think we should ask these public corporations to issue constant reports. There is a statutory obligation on the Corporation to issue an annual report and that, of course, will be done. The Corporation has not yet been in charge of the scheme for a full calendar year and I think it is premature to ask for a White Paper today. On the other hand, I welcome a Debate on the subject at the earliest possible moment.

Captain Crookshank: The point is not so much for the Corporation to make a report as for the Minister to make a report; therefore, will he not himself consider producing a short White Paper before the Debate in order that the House may have the facts?

Mr. Strachey: I propose to put the facts before the House in the opening speech of that Debate. I think that is the usual and normal procedure.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Is the Minister's diffidence in this affair due to the fact that, originally, the estimates were so inaccurate?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I do not think the House will have to complain of diffidence when I make the speech.

Mr. Drayson: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that he had sufficient information at his disposal in April last year to publish in "Report to the Nation. No. 15," the fact that groundnuts from the East African scheme would give us


more margarine in a few years' time? Can he say specifically what "a few years" referred to and by how much he can increase the margarine ration?

Mr. Strachey: The first contribution to The margarine ration will be made this year from East African supplies, on quite a small scale, of course. Certainly in the first year of the scheme the supplies deriving from it are on a small scale. They will rise year by year from then on. As for the height of the ration, that depends on supplies from this and other sources. The ration has been twice increased.

Mr. Stanley: First, in regard to the statement that a certain amount of margarine has been arriving, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to say how much?

Mr. Strachey: No, what I said was that the first contribution to supplies of oils and fats from East Africa will arrive in the course of this year. The groundnuts have been planted in the last few weeks and supplies cannot have arrived already.

Mr. Stanley: Secondly, in view of the fact that this is a very big and complicated scheme, obviously involving a large number of figures, would it not be for the convenience of those who wish to take part in the Debate that the figures should be available before the Debate, rather than announced to the House during the speech of the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Strachey: That would involve a White Paper which must be issued, in effect, by the Corporation, or on behalf of the Corporation. That would anticipate its first annual report, and I am not prepared to ask the Corporation to do it.

Mr. Stanley: But if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to anticipate—and apparently wants to anticipate—the Corporation's annual report in his speech, why is he so diffident about doing it in a White Paper 24 hours before?

Mr. Strachey: The request for a Debate on the subject came from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and I am prepared, as I think the Leader of the House is prepared, to meet them on the matter, but we do not see any necessity to go further than that.

Sausage Casings

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that exporters of sheep casings to the United States, who are allowed to use the dollars so obtained to buy hog casings, fail, owing to the shortage of sheep casings, to obtain enough hog casings for the sausage requirements of this country; and how he proposes to remedy this situation.

Mr. Strachey: It is mainly the restricted United States demand for sheep casings from this country that limits the quantity of hog casings which can be imported under the special arrangements to which the hon. Member refers. To end the shortage of hog casings here, we should have to make direct purchases for dollars, which we cannot afford at present.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that the public would much rather eat their sausage meat clothed than naked, and is not the surplus of potatoes a good reason for trying to increase the supply of sausage and mash?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly, but we cannot afford dollars for extra casings.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that people are more interested in the contents of the sausage than the casing, whether it be of sheep or hog?

Captain John Crowder: Is it not a fact that manufacturers are paying £1 per 100 yards for sausage skins from the Continent which are bought in America at 5s., and is that not an uneconomical way of carrying on business?

Mr. Strachey: I have no information on the point of yardage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—but we are supplying as much as we can from soft currency sources.

U.S. Cheese

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that imported U.S. cheese is not liked and is regarded as tasteless and unsuitable; and whether he intends to import further quantities of this foodstuff in view of the complaints.

Mr. Strachey: We already buy all the cheese available from home, Commonwealth and soft currency sources. But we


need, in addition, all the United States cheese which we can afford in order to support the ration and the 12 oz. of cheese distributed to agricultural workers and others.

Mr. Keeling: Has the Minister considered, as he promised to consider, the suggestion I made last year, that this American imitation Cheddar could be made palatable if kept a few months before being issued?

Mr. Strachey: I will consider that, but we have to use supplies fairly currently for the ration.

Special Rations

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Food why he has laid it down that membership of a trade union shall be a condition for consideration of applications by groups of workers for special rations.

Mr. Strachey: No such condition has ever been laid down, or observed, either by me, or by my predecessors.

Mr. Baker White: In view of that reply, will the Minister explain why, when his Parliamentary Secretary met a deputation from the Fertilisers Manufacturers Association asking for rations for their heavy workers, she replied that she could not consider it, but if the workers concerned joined a trade union, it could be put forward through trade union channels and considered?

Mr. Strachey: I should imagine that the nature of the reply was to the effect that the Trades Union Congress often advise us on these questions, and we will continue to pay very careful attention to their views.

Potatoes (Price)

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Minister of Food how the present price of potatoes in Northern Ireland compares with the prices of £10 13s. 6d. and £11 8s. 6d. per ton, f.o.b. Eire port at which he has contracted for 50,000 tons from Eire.

Mr. Strachey: Comparable f.o.b. prices for Northern Ireland potatoes are £10 5s. and £11 3s. 4d. per ton, but the average price to the grower in Northern Ireland is higher than in Eire because of the acreage payment and the lower costs between farm and port.

Sir R. Ross: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he can buy potatoes in Northern Ireland at £7 15s. per ton? Further, if he has to waste £200,000 of the taxpayers' money, is it not better to waste it inside the United Kingdom rather than outside?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot agree with either of the implications of the hon. Member.

Parmesan Cheese

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make provision for the supply of Parmesan cheese to the public through retailers throughout the country, in view of the attractive dishes which can be prepared from un-rationed foods with this cheese.

Mr. Strachey: We hope to import some Parmesan cheese from Italy this year.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how desirable it is to provide more variety of diet and will he do everything possible in order that something which is really good and tasty is provided?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will this cheese be on or off points?

Mr. Strachey: We have not yet settled that.

Mr. De la Bère: Make it off.

Bananas (Distribution)

Mr. Austin: asked the Minister of Food whether, in the case of the maldistribution of bananas, he has considered correspondence received from the hon. Member for Stretford, requesting a more equitable and efficient distribution in the interests of the young persons for whom the bananas are intended.

Mr. Strachey: I am looking into the specific complaints sent me by my hon. Friend and will let him know the result.

Rice

Mr. Challen: asked the Minister of Food why any rationing scheme is applied to rice, having regard to the fact that the


quantity now available is nearly equal to the amount available in 1938 when no rationing was necessary.

Mr. Strachey: In terms of milled rice, imports in 1948 were 34,900 tons and in 1938, 133,560 tons. Supplies are not nearly large enough to meet the demand without rationing.

Carrots

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food how many tons of carrots were bought recently by his Department at £9 5s. per ton loose and £9 12s. 6d. in sacks; how many tons were sold at 56s. 6d. per ton loose and 64s. in sacks; and how many tons are still unsold.

Mr. Strachey: Thirty-one thousand tons have so far been bought under the guarantee. About 3,000 tons have been sold for stock-feeding, the bulk of them loose, leaving 28,000 tons to be sold.

Sir W. Smithers: The Minister has not told me what the loss is. May I ask him, as I have asked him before, when he will realise that if he breaks the law of supply and demand, it will break him and the country?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot inform the hon. Member of the loss, as 28,000 tons have not yet been sold. Until they have been sold, we shall not know what the loss is. If the hon. Member wishes the guarantees on this and other agricultural prices to the farmer to be abrogated, he should say so.

Maize Loan, Eire

Sir R. Ross: asked the Minister of Food how much additional bacon and other pig products have been imported by the United Kingdom from Eire as a result of the recent loan of maize.

Mr. Strachey: None, Sir. No conditions were attached to this loan, beyond full replacements at our convenience.

Sir R. Ross: When will the Minister realise the folly of trying to get from Eire food which either we do not want, as in the case of potatoes, or do not get, as in the case of pigs?

Mr. Strachey: This is not a question of getting food from Eire. It is a question of a loan which will be repaid and which will not make any difference to our food stocks.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT TRUMAN AND MARSHAL STALIN (PROPOSED MEETING)

Mr. Chamberlain: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the willingness of both President Truman and Marshal Stalin to meet, he will now offer to arrange such a meeting in London.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As no official communication has been addressed to me by either President Truman or Marshal Stalin, I see no purpose in intervening as suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Chamberlain: While appreciating that to be the situation, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the present international deadlock can now be resolved only by some top-level meeting such as has been proposed? Further, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the immediate obstacles, namely, the refusal of both Stalin and Truman to meet in each other's territories, and the desire of the President to bring Great Britain into the conference, would both be solved by the solution proposed in my Question?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the Prime Minister think that the Government of Britain should take the lead in world peace? Is he also aware of the great cordiality with which the Russian sailors have been greeted in Edinburgh this weekend? Will he, therefore, invite the two statesmen to meet in Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh?

The Prime Minister: That is rather a different question. I quite agree as to the desirability of doing all we can to encourage world peace, but I am not aware that the method which has been suggested by the hon. Member is the best.

Mr. Austin: As orthodox methods at the United Nations and elsewhere have already failed in many respects, does not my right hon. Friend agree that if the people of the world are to be assured of peace in the future, personal pride and prejudice ought to be put aside by the three statesmen concerned, and that they should get together and settle their differences?

The Prime Minister: There is no question of pride and prejudice.

Mr. Chamberlain: Will my right hon. Friend at least bear in mind that even in this latter day a little energetic initiative might yet move mountains?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has taken the initiative again and again. I do not know why hon. Members always seem to think that all the initiative should come from this country. A little initiative from the other side of Europe would be an advantage.

Mr. Thurtle: Will my right hon. Friend refrain from taking any action which is likely to delay the signing of the North Atlantic Pact?

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE (TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT, 1925)

Professor Savory: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consult the Government of Northern Ireland, which was a party to the Tripartite Agreement of 1925, before foregoing the claim to the £155 million which is now payable by the Eireann Government, since they have broken the terms under which the debt was conditionally forgiven, that is, the acceptance by the Free State of Article 1 of the Agreement recognising the existing boundary between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Professor Savory: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that Eire has now definitely repudiated Article 1 of the Agreement of 1925, under which they recognised the existing boundary between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland? How can they expect to benefit by Article 2 of the same Agreement, under which they were released, in accordance with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Prime Minister in this House, from a liability of £155 million, which they had undertaken under Clause 5 of the Treaty of 1921?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot answer for what another Government may expect.

Professor Savory: I could not hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply.

Sir R. Ross: Does the Prime Minister consider that where there is an agreement one side is still bound by it if the other repudiates the agreement?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter for consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN, 1951

Sir William Darling: asked the Lord President of the Council if estimates have yet been prepared for the Festival of Britain, 1951.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Estimates 1949–50, which will shortly be published, include provision for expenditure on the Festival of Britain, 1951. It will be appreciated that at this stage it is impossible for any very accurate estimate to be drawn up, and it is not yet possible to give any useful estimate of the total expenditure likely to be incurred on the Festival.

Sir W. Darling: I take it we may assume that although the Festival of Britain will in the main be located in the capital of this country, it will be closely associated with similar festivities throughout the United Kingdom which are also to be part of the Festival of Britain?

Mr. Morrison: I thought that the hon. Member would have been aware that we have actually appointed a Scottish Committee and a Welsh one.

Mr. Stanley: On whose Vote will this expenditure be borne?

Mr. Morrison: It will be a separate Vote in association with the C.O.I. Vote, but it will be a distinct and identifiable Vote, although, as will be appreciated that there are certain organisations like the Arts Council of Britain and others which will incur part of the expenditure, which will not be entirely easy to consolidate.

Mr. Stanley: Which Minister will answer for this Vote?

Mr. Morrison: I shall.

Miss Bacon: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that London, Wales and Scotland are not the only important places in Great Britain?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure my hon. Friend that one of the last things I should do would be to forget Yorkshire.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES, WALES

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Lord President of the Council if it is the intention of the Government to bring within the purview of the proposed Welsh Advisory Council the activities of the nationalised industries in Wales.

Mr. H. Morrison: Only to the extent that the activities of the socialised industries may already be within the terms of reference which I announced on 24th November.

Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend be a little more helpful and explicit than he was in the statement which he has just made? We should certainly like to have more information.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY (SEEDLINGS)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture on what dates in 1948 the Forestry Commission notified the nursery trade, first provisionally and secondly finally, what surplus of seedlings and transplants were being made available for the planting season 1948–49; and what proportion of such plants were in the hands of the trade in time to be planted out in the autumn of 1948.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Provisionally on 23rd July, and finally on 1st or 2nd December in England and Wales and on 4th December in Scotland. The answer to the last part of the Question is "none."

Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that this most valuable and

helpful gesture on the part of the Forestry Commission is reduced by about 50 per cent. if he does not let the nursery trade have those plants in time for the autumn planting season?

Mr. Williams: I understand that the Forestry Commission are very anxious to give as early notice as they possibly can.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONAL STATEMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity of making a personal statement relative to the position that has arisen in consequence of my recent appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions.
Since 1918 I have been in receipt of a 50 per cent. disability pension in respect of the loss of a leg while serving as a private soldier at Vimy Ridge in the First World War. As I am the first war-disabled pensioner to hold office in the Ministry charged with the administration of pensions and the welfare of pensioners, I feel it to be in the best traditions of public life to declare my interest and to relinquish my pension and allowances during the tenure of my present office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I have taken steps to implement this decision.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 79.

Division No. 46.]
AYES
[3.34 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Barton, C
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Battley, J. R
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)


Albu, A. H.
Bechervaise, A. E.
Callaghan, James


Alpass, J. H.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J
Chamberlain, R. A.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Benson, G.
Champion, A. J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Berry, H.
Chetwynd, G. R


Attewell, H. C.
Blackburn, A. R
Cooks, F. S


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Blyton, W. R.
Collick, P.


Austin, H. Lewis
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Collindridge, F


Ayles, W. H.
Bramall, E. A.
Comyns, Dr. L.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Cove, W. G.


Bacon, Miss A.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Crawley, A.


Balfour, A
Brown, George (Belper)
Cullen, Miss


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Daines, P




Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Levy, B. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Shurmer, P


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, S. S (Nelson)


Deer, G
Logan, D. G
Simmons, C. J


Dodds, N. N
Longden, F.
Skeffington, A. M


Driberg, T. E. N.
McAdam, W.
Skinnard, F. W


Dumpleton, C. W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Snow, J. W.


Dye, S.
McGhee, H. G.
Solley, L. J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mack, J. D.
Sparks, J. A.


Edelman, M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R. (Lambeth)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon Edith


Follick, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, S


Foot, M. M.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gilzean, A
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Monslow, W
Titterington, M. F


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Tolley, L.


Grenfell, D. R. 
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Guy, W. H.
Moyle, A.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Hairs, John E. (Wycombe)
Naylor, T. E.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Harrison, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J. (Derby)
Walkden, E.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oliver, G. H.
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Haworth, J.
Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)
Warbey, W N.


Hicks, G.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)


Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A. 
Weitzman, D.


Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Piratin, P.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Horabin, T. L.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Popplewell, E.
Wigg, George


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Irving, W J. (Tottenham, N.)
Randall, H. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Janner, B.
Ranger, J
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Jay, D. P. T.
Rankin, J
Williams, W. R (Heston)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Reeves, J
Willis, E.


Jenkins, R. H.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Yates, V. F.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Kinley, J
Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Lavers, S. 
Royle, C.



Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Segal, Dr. S
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lesile, J. R.
Sharp, Granville
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Nield, B. (Chester)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Rt Hon. O


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Baldwin, A. E
Harris, F W. (Croydon, N.)
Raikes, H. V.


Beechman, N A
Head, Brig A. H.
Renton, D.


Bossom, A. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bower, N
Hurd, A.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Savory, Prof. D L


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glassow, C.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Keeling, E. H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Butcher, H. W.
Lambert, Hon. G. 
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O


Butler, Rt. Hon R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Challen, C.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Studholme, H. G


Channon, H.
Macdonald, Sir P (I. Of Wight)
Sutcliffe, H


Clarke, Col. R. S.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Teeling, William


Conant, Maj R. J. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C.
MacLeod, J
Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G C.


Darling, Sir W. Y
Maitland, Comdr J. W. 
Turton, R. H.


De la Bère R.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Vane, W. M. F. 


Drayson, G. B
Marlowe, A. A. H
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Drewe, C.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Young, Sir A. S. L (Partick)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Medlicott, Brigadier F. 



Fraser, H. C. P (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)
Molson, A H E.
Colonel Wheatley and


Galbraith, Cmdr T D (Pollok)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T
Mr. Wingfield Digby.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nicholson, G.



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order read for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 7, page 4, line 10, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Woodburn.—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

CLAUSE 7.—(ADJUSTMENTS AS TO RATING RELIEF BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT.)

3.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out from "Act," to end of the Clause, and to insert:
the total amount which would, apart from the provisions of this Section, fall to be de-frayed by a local authority out of rates levied by them on owners in the year commencing on the appointed day in respect of expenditure incurred in the provision of a supply of water is less than the total amount which fell to be so defrayed in the year immediately preceding that day, then, in the year commencing on that day and in each of the four succeeding years, the total amount to be levied by that authority on owners liable in payment of the county rate or the burgh rate, as the case may be, shall be increased, and the total amount to be levied on occupiers liable in payment of the domestic water rate shall be decreased, by an amount equal to the difference between the amounts aforesaid, and the county rate or the burgh rate and the domestic water rate shall, in each of those five years, be adjusted and levied accordingly.
The Clause as it stands provides that where the Bill transfers the liability for water rates from the owner to the occupier, the occupier may obtain, by paying one shilling, a certificate saying how much has been transferred. The occupier, after having gone to the trouble of buying a certificate, may find that the amount of the difference is less than 10s., in which case he gets no benefit. If the amount is over 10s., he may then recover the amount from the landlord. Some points about the complexity of this Clause were raised in the Standing Committee, and as a result I have given the matter further thought.
It seems to me that the procedure originally proposed has serious defects. First, the tenant might never know that

he had the right of recovery under the Clause. I had to consider whether there was any way of making it known to him. That involved serious administrative difficulties. If he did know and he bought a certificate, after paying the shilling he might be irritated to discover that he could recover nothing. In addition to this, the whole procedure involved a considerable amount of what in my opinion was unnecessarily complicated administration. First, the person pays the amount, then he obtains the certificate to enable him to recover it. It seemed that the more simple way was to short-circuit that procedure by allowing him to avoid paying it in the first instance.
Therefore, I took the opportunity of raising the whole question at a meeting I had with the associations of local authorities. They also were alarmed at the amount of administrative work involved which would require a considerable increase in staff at certain times of the year. Finally, they agreed that a sub-committee should meet with my officials and at that meeting the local authorities put forward the proposal embodied in this Amendment. That proposal is that instead of providing for an adjustment to be made between individual owners and individual occupiers, the Clause should provide for the adjustment to be made over a period of five years between owners as a class and occupiers as a class.

3.45 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the real effect of this Amendment is that for a period of five years the owners will not gain relief under this Bill?

Mr. Woodburn: Mr. Woodburn indicated assent.

Commander Galbraith: The owner will be in the same position as he is now. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if there is to be recovery then it should be automatic and it should be the same for everyone. That is what the Amendment does. But, beyond that, it is perhaps unfortunate that at this time we should not be giving even this minimum of relief to owners of property. I say that in the interests of the tenants, really, because the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the great difficulties at present of maintaining properties in


repair; and even this small adjustment at least would have encouraged owners to go ahead even though they were paying the money from their own pockets, apart from the rents they were receiving. From that point of view, I regret the provision. On the other hand, I agree that, should there be recovery, it should be automatic and not left to the whim of an individual.

Mr. McKie: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having brought forward this Amendment. As he rightly pointed out, there was some concise discussion on Clause 7 in the Standing Committee. The point mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) was discussed at some length by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). The Minister on that occasion seemed to turn down the plea made by my right hon. and gallant Friend, and he seemed to do it somewhat brusquely. Very little attention was paid to the excellent argument which was put forward. At all events, the Minister has shown that his mind is not altogether closed. He has given us an illustration that even he sometimes sees on reflection that second thoughts may be best. I congratulate him on having taken advantage of the considerable period of time that has elapsed since the conclusion of the Committee stage before Christmas to have these consultations.
Throughout the Committee stage we complained that local authorities and other parties interested in this Bill had not been consulted by the right hon. Gentleman and those responsible at the Scottish Office for drafting the Bill in the way we thought they ought to have been. Now the Minister has shown that the pleas we made at all points during the Committee stage have at last sunk in, and he has had these conversations. I congratulate him on having gone half way to meet us. But of course the right hon. Gentleman, by not having gone as we think far enough in the direction of the owner, has shown—and I say this without any real political bias—that so far as the owners are concerned he still has a somewhat hard heart. I have been in this House long enough now to realise that sometimes one can overdo a case by harping too much on a certain point, and I profit by the long experience I

have had in that direction. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot go all the way to satisfy me and my right hon. Friends, at all events I am grateful for this crumb of comfort. Perhaps that is not paying the right hon. Gentleman a sufficient compliment. I congratulate him on having gone a considerable way along the road to meet us. I think that this Amendment will give general satisfaction to those parties in Scotland, and there are many of them, who are watching the progress of this Bill with considerable attention.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendment; as amended, (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal) considered.

NEW CLAUSE. —(AMENDMENT OF DEFINITION OF "COMMUNICATION PIPE," &C.)

(1) Where any main is laid alongside and within sixty feet of the middle of a street, then, for the purposes of the definition of "communication pipe" contained in subsection (1) of section eighty-four of the principal Act, the land in which the main is laid, and any land between the main and the street shall be deemed to form part of the street, and references in that definition to the part of the street in which the main is laid, and to the boundary of the street in which the main is laid, shall be construed accordingly:

Provided that where the premises supplied with water lie between any such main as aforesaid and the street, only that land in which the main is laid together with any land between the main and those premises shall be deemed to form part of the street.

(2) Where any main is laid as mentioned in the foregoing subsection, the power of the local authority to lay service pipes, stopcocks and other fittings under paragraph 7 of the Third Schedule to the principal Act shall include power, with the consent of every owner and occupier of the land, and subject to payment of compensation for any damage done by the authority, to lay such pipes, stopcocks and fittings in, on or over any land which is deemed to form part of a street for the purposes specified in the foregoing subsection.

(3) Any consent required for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any question whether such consent is, or is not, unreasonably withheld shall be referred to and determined by the Secretary of State; and any dispute as to the amount of compensation to be paid under the last foregoing subsection shall be determined by arbitration in the manner provided by section eighty-three of the principal Act.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the provisions of subsection (3) of section twenty-eight of the principal Act (which subsection relates to the vesting in the local water authority of communication pipes) apply to any pipe laid before the commencement of this Act which, by virtue of this section, is deemed to be a communication pipe.—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is with some satisfaction, after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) that I am in a position to give him further pleasure in moving this new Clause because, on the Committee stage of the Bill, he put down an Amendment which was very largely to the same effect as this new Clause. At the time, we were inclined to reject it because our information was that the practice of laying pipes parallel to the street and not in the street was not sufficiently prevalent in Scotland to justify the Amendment being included in the Bill. We promised to look at the matter again, and here also, after consultation with the local authorities, we decided that, while it was not a very common thing in Scotland, there were sufficient cases to justify us including such a provision in the Bill. I am therefore happy to be able to say that the proposal of the Amendment originally moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Galloway, should be included in the Bill.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Before we accept this new Clause, which I am glad to see, and at the risk of enraging the Lord Advocate, I want to raise again the question of the wording, and it is not "ballyhoo" in which I am going to indulge. We had some discussion in Committee on the word "premises," and we were told that it was necessary to use this word, which does not occur in the lexicon of Scottish law, in order that the Bill should tie up with the United Kingdom Bill. A feebler case I have never heard, and I cannot understand why it should be insisted upon. The fact is that the original Bill should have been divided between Scotland and England and Wales to form two separate Acts. This Clause is one of the signs of stupidity in having a Bill which

should have been divided as I have suggested, because we have to use a non-Scottish legal phrase in order that the Bill should tie up with the main Act.
This is a perfect example of the difficulties which may arise as a result of the Government not accepting what we have been saying for a long time, not for purposes of advertisement or "ballyhoo," but solely in order to preserve Scottish interests in a matter of law. I hope the Lord Advocate will be able to give us a little more convincing argument why this has been done, because in this case the original Act referred to for England and Wales, the Local Government Act, 1948, is obviously wrong in its foundation.

Sir William Darling: Perhaps the learned Lord Advocate will also extend his indulgence to me when he is giving his interpretation to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). The Clause refers to the boundary of the street. Do I understand that the words "street" and "road" are the same in Scottish law in actual practice? It would seem invidious that this Clause should apply only to streets, and it seems possible that roads may be excluded?

Mr. McKie: I only rise to express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for having met me almost entirely regarding the Amendment which I put forward on the Committee stage. I think the further we go in the discussion of this Bill, both in the re-committal and now on Report, we illustrate the fact that the Conservative Opposition in Committee did make a good job of their task, because we now have the right hon. Gentleman moving two Amendments which are directly concerned with the well-grounded suggestions which we put forward upstairs. I think I am justified in making that remark by what has happened since.
These Amendments will certainly give great satisfaction to local authorities in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman attempted a slight gibe at me in the Committee upstairs for asking that he should bring Scotland completely into conformity with the law of England. I see him enjoying himself now because there appears to be some difference of opinion between my hon. and gallant Friend the


Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and myself on this point. I listened carefully to what my hon. and gallant Friend said, and I hope that, although I was responsible for a similar Amendment in Committee, and although I am supporting the new Clause, he will not accuse me of being anxious too slavishly to follow the law of England and Wales. I approach this matter with an open mind, and I ask myself, as I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will ask himself, what will be the best for Scotland. If we can be satisfied that what we are doing will prove beneficial to Scotland, I feel certain that my hon. and gallant Friend, with his long experience of administration, will agree. This will make the task of the local authorities easier. We are always being told that we are to envisage a new Scotland, and so we have these Amendments, which will certainly make things easier with regard to the planning of new towns. That was the point which I had in mind when I moved a similar Amendment in Committee.
The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) about the use of the words "street" and "road," and he seemed to dislike the idea and thought that there might be some confusion of terms. I see my hon. Friend nodding assent to what I am saying. As a dweller in the countryside, I should dislike very much the idea that the road which runs past my house was to be designated a street. There is always more jealousy from the rural areas than there is from the urban areas on that point. On the other hand, I suppose my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh would object if Princes Street were to be designated a road. I want to know whether the lane which runs past my house can be designated as a street, because I should object to that.

Sir W. Darling: Sir W. Darling rose——

Mr. McKie: My hon. Friend and I seem to be at cross-purposes on this subject, but I join with him in hoping that the Lord Advocate, that great luminary of Scottish law, will be able effectively to clear up this point. If he cannot clear it up to the satisfaction of both of us—and I do not suppose he can, because we hold opposing views—I still hope that the matter can be set at rest. I am credibly informed that the County Council

of Selkirk—I am sorry that my noble Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord W. Scott) is not in his place—which is one of the smallest local authorities in Scotland, has been doing this very thing for some time. I do not know whether the County Council of Selkirk envisage a large new town development in their area, but the south of Scotland has always been in the van of social progress. With those few words, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has been good enough to do, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will clear up what may be a small point but, like many small points in Scotland, might lead to very far-reaching differences of opinion.

4.0 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not at variance or in disagreement with the substance of this Clause at all, but merely with the verbiage contained in it.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): It is with some hesitation that I intervene in this private quarrel of hon. Members opposite. I was pleased to hear the initial assurance given by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) that the remarks he proposed to make were not going to be of a certain character. However, I was disappointed when I listened to his subsequent remarks because the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if I may say so with respect, has obviously not taken the trouble to ascertain what exactly is meant by the use of the word "premises." Likewise, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) has not taken the trouble to ascertain the definition of the word "street," as, otherwise, he would not have asked the simple and elementary question which he posed.
The use of the word "premises," as explained in the Committee stage, was invoked, first of all, to give an easy descriptive generic name to the various types of premises to which this Bill referred. The word "premises" prefixed the description of subjects of varying natures in different parts of the Bill. The word "premises" is not foreign to Scottish law; it is not a word which is "not even in the Scottish lexicon. "As I informed the Committee, and now inform the House, it was defined in the 1946 Act, which is the principal Act and which


has to be read along with this Bill. It was not new even then. Hon. Members will find a statutory definition of "premises" in Scottish Bills as far back as 1897. Therefore, there is nothing new in the use of the word. We have given it a specific definition in the principal Act of 1946, and, if for convenience of drafting, the use of the word is justified, then I cannot for the life of me understand the grievance of the hon. and gallant Member in that we have used this particular word. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh asked what was meant by the word "street."

Sir W. Darling: I asked whether the word "street" used in the new Clause had the same meaning as "road." I was anxious that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as is his duty, should inform me as a member of the public what his Clause meant.

The Lord Advocate: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to look at the principal Act, which is the basis on which——

Sir W. Darling: That is no part of my duty.

The Lord Advocate: If the hon. Gentleman feels that it is no part of his duty to read the principal Act on which this Bill is based——

Sir W. Darling: It is the right hon. Gentleman's Bill.

The Lord Advocate: —then, of course, we could spend the whole day and night trying to instruct the hon. Gentleman in the knowledge which he ought to possess before he criticises the Government in respect of this Bill.

Sir W. Darling: Is it in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to charge me with being unsuitable for my duties because I have no knowledge of and training in law?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The right hon. and learned Gentleman said nothing of the sort. He said that the hon. Gentleman had not adequately prepared himself to take part in this Debate, which I think was in Order.

The Lord Advocate: For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, may I point out

that the definition of "street" includes any highway, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not. I think that is sufficiently comprehensive to cover even the lane along which the fairies run at the end of the hon. Member's garden.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does that definition include a vennel?

The Lord Advocate: I should think that if a vennel is an alley or a passage, it would be included.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(PROVISION AS TO LIABILITY FOR DOMESTIC WATER RATE.)

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out from "unless," to the end of line 30, and to insert:

"(a) in the case of a dwelling house a sufficient supply of wholesome water for domestic purposes is provided by a local water authority in pipes within the house or within the premises in which the house is comprised;
(b) in the case of premises being agricultural lands and heritages a sufficient supply of wholesome water for domestic purposes is provided by a local water authority in pipes within some dwelling house comprised in the premises; and
(c) in the case of any other premises a supply of water provided by a local water authority is used for any purpose for or in connection with which the premises are used or by or for persons employed or otherwise engaged on or about the premises in connection with such purpose."

Hon. Members will remember that in Committee my right hon. Friend undertook to reconsider this Clause before the Report stage with a view to making clear the circumstances in which the domestic water rate would be leviable. Indeed, I believe that the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) moved an Amendment which we discussed at some length in Committee, and which he withdrew on the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend. This Amendment is the result of my right hon. Friend having looked at the matter again.
Under the amended Clause, the occupier of a dwelling house will be liable for the domestic water rate if, for example, there is a supply of water provided by the local authority on the


landing of the tenement stairs on which he lives, but not if he draws his water supply from a standpipe in the street. That means that we could easily have a house in a city like Edinburgh or Glasgow without a water supply actually led into the house, but if the water supply is laid on to the premises within the building in which the house is situated, and the occupier of the house has advantage of the water supply laid on by the local authority, then such occupier will be leviable for the domestic water rates.
Under paragraph (b) of the Amendment it is made clear that, in regard to agricultural premises, the occupier will only be leviable if the local water authority has laid on a water supply to some dwelling house comprised in the premises. Paragraph (c) is intended to cover all premises other than dwelling houses and agricultural lands and heritages, and is designed to cover, in particular, the case, which I understand to be fairly common, where a shop is without a water supply, but where the occpier draws water from a neighbouring shop with the consent of the local authority. That means that we could have a shop into which a water pipe is not laid, but where, with the consent of the local authority, the occupier has the advantage, and takes advantage, of a water supply laid on to an adjoining shop. Such an occupier would be leviable for the domestic water rate. I think that this Amendment clarifies the position which seemed during the Committee stage to be a little obscure, and I hope it will have the support of the House.

Commander Galbraith: The Under-Secretary is quite correct. I did raise this matter on the Commitee stage, and I hoped that we would be able to get a perfectly clear decision as to what was intended. What I had hoped, of course, was that no one would be chargeable with the domestic water rate unless he actually had water within his own house. Indeed, I thought paragraph (a) meant that, but now the hon. Gentleman tells us that if water is provided on the stairhead—and I suppose on a stairhead there might be three houses—then each of those houses will be chargeable with the domestic water rate. That is unfortunate because it means possibly a continuation of that practice which not one of us on this side of the House likes.
We want to see water in people's houses. I think it would have been preferable for the domestic water rate to be chargeable only where the water is actually in the house in question. However, the hon. Gentleman has cleared up the position. I thank him for the frank way in which he has done so and explained the position to us. In general, it means that unless water is actually in the house the domestic water rate will not be charged. That is the general implication.
I am not quite so happy about paragraph (b). The hon. Gentleman said that the domestic water rate would be chargeable if there was water supplied through pipes within some dwellinghouse. In the ordinary agricultural holding—lands and heritages, as we call them in this Bill—there is generally a farmhouse and possibly one or two farmworkers' cottages. Am I to understand that if water happens to be laid into one of those cottages, the domestic water rate will be chargeable upon all the dwellinghouses on the holding? It would almost seem as though that were the case. The matter is of some importance, because I know of numerous cases where one of the cottages happens to be adjacent to the main and the farmhouse itself is some distance removed from it. I want it to be made clear that this rate will not be chargeable upon buildings which are associated with the farm and used as dwellinghouses unless they actually have water supplied to them.
As to the other matter, here again I am disappointed. I do not like this idea of people being charged a rate when they are not receiving water. It is all very fine to say that the water is in the shop next door, as I understood the hon. Gentleman to say. Apparently, because it is in the shop next door, the rate is charged on the shop that has not got it. That seems to me to be wrong.

Mr. Woodburn: The people in that shop still use the water.

Commander Galbraith: Even so, unless that convenience is provided actually in the shop, surely the occupants of that shop should not be charged a domestic rate. It is the same sort of thing as the old lady going to the pump. The man in one shop has to take his bucket and walk round to the


next shop to get a supply of water, and that does not seem to me to be the proper way to deal with this matter. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman can do about it now, but the principle should be that a domestic rate should not be chargeable unless there is water actually in the premises or in the dwellinghouse in question.

4.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: I should like to know whether there are likely to be many cases in which the water supply is in one shop, and another shop is taking its supply from that shop. I should have thought that it was rather rare.

Mr. Woodburn: Our information is that this provision covers a large number of cases, especially in a place like Glasgow, where the water is not actually in the house itself but is attached in some way to the house so that it is available to that house. The pipe might be attached outside the house and not inside at all. It might be used not only for domestic purposes but for use outside the premises. In the case of shops, it is not the duty of the local authority to put the water in a shop, nor is it their duty to put the water into a house. It may suit the convenience of the people concerned not to lead the water actually into the house so that it can be utilised where it is most convenient. Take, for instance, a farm steading—a series of houses round a courtyard; the water may not be in any of the houses, but yet may be in the premises available quite conveniently for all these houses.
On the other hand, it may be attached to one house and it may be used by all the people from that house. It is a matter for the owner or the occupier, as the case may be, to decide whether it is convenient to bring the water into his house, but the fact that everybody is using the water supply would seem to require them to pay their contribution to the general rates. In a city like Glasgow it would mean a great loss and an additional burden on the other people paying the rates if these cases were excluded. It is for that reason that we ask the House to accept this Amendment. We appreciate the difficulties. We have had a great many headaches trying to find some way in which the matter could be put on the basis

suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Lieut.-Commander Galbraith). This is the best we can do in consultation with the local authorities, and we trust the House will accept it.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Before this discussion is closed I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more specific about the case of which I have some experience—agricultural lands and premises where, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) pointed out, there is one cottage which draws its water supply from the local water system, and the remainder of the premises consisting of two or three farms and houses all have a private supply. Am I to understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that, because one cottage draws a limited supply from the local water system, which nobody else shares, the whole of the hereditaments and premises—the agricultural lands and buildings—will be drawn in to contribute to the rates although they do not get their water from that source?

Mrs. Jean Mann: In my constituency, the town of Coatbridge, there are two streets where the tenants have no water at all; there is not even any water on the stairheads. They go out in the morning to a pump situated in the street, and they draw water from the pump if they are lucky. On a frosty morning they do not draw any water at all, and they have to go to their various occupations with faces which are more or less clean. I want to know whether these people will be charged a water rate under this Bill.

Mr. Rankin: I want to put a further point to my right hon. Friend. I can think of many cases such as he has described, where there is one water supply attached to a house. I am thinking particularly of smallholdings where there is a large house and several cottages, all attached, and where there is one water supply which is used by all the group of people in those houses. During the summer months these houses are mostly let to visitors, so that for a large part of the year they are not occupied at all. Does the Amendment mean that a domestic water rate will have to be paid for each of these houses, even though they are not in use for nine


months in the year? Has any thought been given to providing a solution for this real difficulty, by fixing a minimum charge to be levied on the smallholder for his domestic water supply?

The Lord Advocate: May I deal with the various points which have been raised? Referring first to paragraph (a), I would inform the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) that the supply of water must be
within the premises in which the house is comprised
so that the pump in the street would not come within the ambit of this paragraph and people drawing water from that pump would not be chargeable with the domestic rate. Turning to agriculture, I ask hon. Members to read along with Clause 2, to which this Amendment refers, the provisions of Clause 3 (1). In Clause 2 (1) it is provided that there shall be a domestic water rate leviable by the local authority "in respect of all lands and heritages." Subsection (2) sets out the conditions on which that requisition can be made. The original Subsection (3) imposed a condition, which is now translated into paragraph (b) of the Amendment, to the effect that
in the case of … agricultural lands and heritages a sufficient supply of wholesome water for domestic purposes is provided by a local water authority in pipes within some dwelling house comprised in the premises.
That is a sine qua non of the requisition of a domestic rate. When we turn to Clause 3 (1) we discover that in assessing rateable value for the purposes of requisitioning a domestic rate on agricultural lands and heritages, one only takes into account
any dwelling house or dwelling houses comprised in the premises and provided with a supply of water.
Therefore, in the case adumbrated by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), where there were a number of dwelling houses only some of which were supplied with water, those which were not supplied would not be brought into the computation in assessing the value of the premises.
Finally, the justification for paragraph (c) is that in some local authority areas shops and other business premises by arrangement sometimes draw a supply from another shop or business premises supplied on a water main. They are

therefore to a large extent and for business purposes drawing the water supply of the local authority. It would be inequitable if these people, making such a call on the supply of water from the local authority, were to be exonerated from the responsibility of playing their part in the payment for that water. This provision therefore has been incorporated to deal with particular cases and, in equity, I think it is justified.

Commander Galbraith: With permission, Sir, I would say it is rather unfair, where a supply of water is on the stair head and where there may well be three separate houses, that the people occupying those houses should have to pay a water rate although there is no water in their house. I appreciate the difficulty, but this does seem to me to be a matter of injustice.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(LEVY OF DOMESTIC WATER RATE ON AGRICULTURAL SUBJECTS.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after "taken," to insert "either."
This Amendment, together with the next, is a drafting Amendment. It has the object of making it clear that local authorities are not compelled to meter every supply of water for agricultural purposes but that they may make special charges, for instance in the case of crofts, where that method is more suitable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 4, leave out from "meter," to "or," in line 5.—[Mr. Woodburn.]

CLAUSE 4.—(LEVY OF DOMESTIC WATER RATE ON BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL PREMISES.)

Amendments made: In page 3, line 21, leave out from "premises," to "it," in line 23, and insert "to which this section applies."

In line 27, after "premises," insert "such as aforesaid."

In line 32, leave out from beginning, to "entered," and insert "to which this section applies and which are."

In line 41, leave out from "premises," to "partly," in line 42, and insert "to which this section applies and which are occupied."

In line 43, after "shall," insert "subject to the provisions of Subsection (5) of Section fifteen of this Act."

In line 44, after "dwelling," insert "house."

In line 45, leave out from "the," to "in," in line 46, and insert "remainder of the premises."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 3, line 47, at the end, to insert:
(4) This Section applies to lands and heritages being premises occupied wholly or partly as a shop, offices, a warehouse, factory, cinematograph theatre, theatre, town hall, dance hall or concert hall, and such other premises not being premises occupied wholly as a dwelling house or such premises as are mentioned in the last foregoing section or in either of the two next succeeding sections of this Act as the local authority may from time to time resolve.
On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) raised the question of the extension of the privilege of the domestic rate being levied on one half to one quarter of the gross annual value. He suggested that there were certain categories to which this provision ought to be extended. In Committee other hon. Members also put down Amendments, in addition to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh, and it may be recalled that these were withdrawn on the promise that I would give further consideration to the proposal.
We discussed the matter with the local authorities and we realise that there may be other circumstances and other categories which ought to be included, but we thought it would be a mistake to try and search for every conceivable circumstance in which a hall outside the category mentioned ought to be given this privilege. We have therefore drafted the Amendment in such a way as to cover those which were mentioned on the Committee stage and also to give local authorities a discretion to include such other cases where it might appear suitable or convenient to them that the concession should be granted. The Amendment is therefore drafted to include points which were made, plus a concession to the local authorities to extend the privilege where suitable.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I have one question to ask on this Amendment, and on this occasion I am not questioning the use of the word "premises." The Amendment says:

This section applies to lands and heritages being premises occupied wholly or partly …
Why not say:
Lands and heritages occupied wholly or partly"?
A little later the Amendment says:
Such other premises not being premises occupied wholly as a dwellinghouse …
Could we not say:
Such other premises not occupied wholly …
Is this sort of repetition necessary?

Mr. Woodburn: With permission, perhaps I may say that I have a little longer experience than the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and I have not yet reached the position where I can give an explanation why a Parliamentary draftsman drafts legal phraseology in certain terms. I think the hon. and gallant Member would not ask me to explain why, in drafting legislation, it is found necessary to include these words. We have confidence in our Scottish Parliamentary draftsmen and I think we must rest assured that if the words are there they are necessary for the purpose of making the Amendment clear.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: The Amendment includes premises used for purposes of indoor entertainment or recreation. Would it not be desirable to add places like ice rinks? A number of burghs in Scotland have them. Perhaps the Secretary of State would consider that the necessary Amendments should be made in another place. It would be better to do that rather than to leave it to regulation by the local authority.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I raised this matter, as my right hon. Friend has said, on Second Reading of the Bill, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for having gone into it and for bringing forward this Amendment. I must say, however, that I think that some of the premises specified in this Amendment, and others of which we can think, would have been better included under Clause 5. Certain mines and quarries I have seen use a very substantial amount of water, whereas there are certain halls, of the sort most of us must have seen, in small villages and even in towns where very little water seems to be used at all. I should have thought, therefore, that


my right hon. Friend might have included some of these under Clause 5. However, that consideration apart, I should like to express my appreciation of what my right hon. Friend has done to meet us on this matter.

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) and the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) have raised individual points. Let me direct their attention to the fact that there is discretionary power vested in the local authority to include in this category any other types of premises they think fit. The particular types of premises to which reference was made were, in my opinion, typical of the types of premises which should be left to the discretion of the local authority. To take the illustration of the ice rink, I am not at all satisfied that an ice rink does not consume a great amount of water. If, on the other hand, it does not, then, perhaps, the local authority is in the best position to judge.

Mr. Willis: The point that I made was not that they are embodied in Clause 4, where they are included in the Clause levying the domestic water rate and the half water rate, but the fact that none of them is included in Clause 5. There is no discretion about that at all. They must all be levied at half the water rate. Consider warehouses, for instance. How much water is used in warehouses? In some none is used at all from year's end to year's end. I should have thought that some discretion might have been given to the local authority, on appeal from the person or persons concerned, to have them included in that Clause.

The Lord Advocate: If my hon. Friend will look at the proviso to Clause 4 (1) he will see that, in relation to any of these premises, the local authority has the power to down grade the fraction from a half to a quarter; so we are leaving it entirely to the discretion of the local authority. Let us return to the question of the very much overworked word "premise." Let me point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) that it is used for ease of drafting, for ease of cross reference, so that we do not have a cumbersome string of words to define the premises to which this generic term refers. If he will look at the Amendment again

he will see how the ease of drafting is obtained by using this generic term. The word "premise" comes in there:
premises occupied wholly or partly as a shop, offices … and such other premises not being premises occupied wholly as a dwellinghouse or such premises as are mentioned in the last foregoing Section or in either of the two next succeeding Sections …
Throughout this part of the Bill the word "premises" is prefixed to the description of the differing types of subjects, and cross reference to those types of subjects is made easier by referring to "such premises" in the particular part. It appeared in the Clause as originally drafted, and I must say, in all sincerity, that I cannot see any point in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's objection.

Commander Galbraith: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, I should like to draw his attention to the fact that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) was not in this case referring to the word "premises" but was referring to words which he thought were altogether unnecessary for inclusion in this Clause. However, the difficulty I have here is this. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember, we had a very full explanation from the Secretary of State as to what this Clause meant, and then we found that the Secretary of State really did not know—or so it appeared—whether the words in the Clause really meant what he had said. I should like an assurance from the Lord Advocate, as the senior Law Officer for Scotland, that what the right hon. Gentleman did say was the meaning of the Clause is actually the meaning of the words in the Clause.

Colonel Hutchison: I apologise in advance if I am discussing something which has been discussed already. As there have been so many Committees to attend, and as it is impossible to be in more than one place at one time, this matter may have been clarified when I was absent from the Committee on this Bill because I was attending another Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has taken special powers in connection with factories, warehouses, and premises, and so on, here. Where such premises have been rated and are liable to pay for water supplies, are the same premises entitled to demand to be supplied with


water to their full need? The two go together. Is it automatic, because a firm has been rated and has to pay the water rate, that it can demand to be supplied with water to meet its requirements, however great they may be?

Mr. Rankin: I wonder if the Lord Advocate will clear up one point here? The reference in the Clause is to the "local authority." Does the expression as used here refer to the "local water authority" or to the "local authority," as we usually understand the term? If it refers to the local authority—and I think it does—then the Bill gives local authorities power to vary their rateable value in a way which may result in a saving of expenses which may have to be borne by the supplying authority. My right hon. and learned Friend should make clear the specific interpretation that we should attach to the expression "local authority" in this Clause.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: There is one point to which I should like to draw attention, and that is that the effect of the Amendment on Subsection (2) is to give factories now an option which they did not possess as the Clause was previously drafted. I am a little worried about the effect on the finances of the local authorities of this provision, and I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give the House a little more information regarding it. Very often, of course, at the present, a minimum charge has been fixed by agreement between the factory and the local authority, and it may be that that minimum charge is quite substantially above the half—let alone the quarter—of the gross annual value, as specified in this Clause. Is the effect of this Clause to wash out that agreement? Does it mean that whatever the past agreement has been on that subject as between the factory and the local authority for the minimum charge, that that agreement falls if that minimum charge is higher than the half of the gross annual value?
The other point is this. Assuming that the minimum charge is equal to a quarter of the gross annual value, which I assume would be the practice in future, I cannot see that there can be any objection whatever to anyone exercising an option to take their water on a meter

charge, because that would mean that they would have to pay more. I think that as the Clause stands the whole matter requires a little further explanation. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate what the position is as regards existing agreements and how the inclusion of factories under Subsection (2), which were not previously included, affects the situation?

The Lord Advocate: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would say that I think that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) was confusing the situation in respect of the domestic water rate and the trade water rate. This Clause deals only with the domestic water rate. The agreements to which he was referring were, in my opinion, agreements in respect of trade water. Therefore, that particular problem does not arise. I could not quite follow his argument to the effect that we were now incorporating factories which had not been incorporated before. If he will look at Clause 4 (1), he will see in the forefront that it refers to:
lands and heritages being premises occupied as a shop, offices, a warehouse, or a factory.

Mr. Macpherson: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at line 32, he will see that factories are specifically omitted.

The Lord Advocate: The fact remains, of course, that the overriding provisions of the Clause cover factories. Therefore, I do not see where the difficulty arises so far as the hon. Gentleman's argument is concerned if he distinguishes between the supply of domestic water and the supply of trade water.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) raised the question of the right of supply, but there again I am not sure that he was not confusing the supply of trade water and domestic water. I think that he was particularly concerned about the supply of trade water.

Colonel Hutchison: Yes.

The Lord Advocate: The trade water supply is provided for in the principal Act of 1946 under, I think, Section 11, whereby provision is made that a local water authority shall give a supply of water on reasonable terms and conditions


for purposes other than domestic purposes to the owner or occupier of any premises within the limit of supply who requires them to give that supply to the premises, provided that they shall not be required to give such a supply if they cannot do so in view of their existing commitments and obligations. I think that meets that point.
The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) asked who was the determining authority. The determining authority there will be the particular authority in whose area the premises are situated. If they are being supplied from outside by another supplying authority, under the later provisions of the Bill a formula is worked out whereby there will be a gross assessment of the liability due to the supplying authority for the water supplied by them. Therefore, the determination will be by the local resident authority and not necessarily by the supplying authority. If there is any injustice suffered as a result of that rateable decision, further provision is made in the Bill for the equalisation of the amount, about which my hon. Friend knows, and, accordingly, it is left to the local authority in which the premises are situated to determine whether or not this particular advantage should be given to any particular set of premises.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(CONTRIBUTIONS BY COUNTY COUNCIL IN AID OF DOMESTIC WATER RATE.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, at the end to insert:
(2) Subsection (2) of Section two hundred and thirty-seven of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which Subsection relates to the information required to be contained in demand notes for payment of rates) shall have effect as if expenditure under this Section were a branch of expenditure prescribed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of paragraph (f) of that Subsection.
This is the outcome of an undertaking which I gave to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). Under Clause 8, the county council may levy a rate where they think that the cost of the domestic water supply will be abnormal or too heavy to be borne by the domestic suppliers alone. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was anxious that when the county council made their demand the amount should be shown separately. This

Amendment is to comply with the promise then given.

Commander Galbraith: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this Amendment to meet the point brought to his notice by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). It was, of course, put forward in Committee because of our dislike on this side for concealed subjects of this nature and in order that those who take an interest in rating and the expenditure of their local authority may discover what was the amount involved.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(DISSOLUTION OF SPECIAL WATER SUPPLY DISTRICTS.)

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, at the end, to insert:
(5) Notwithstanding the dissolution under this Section of the special water supply districts, Section forty-five of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894 (which provides for distinguishing in the valuation roll lands and heritages in special water supply districts and for the separate valuation of portions of undertakings within such districts) shall, during such period as may be necessary for the purposes of Subsection (3) of this Section, continue to have effect in relation to areas which formed the special districts so dissolved.
(6) Where immediately before the appointed day a local water authority are entitled under any enactment or agreement to take a supply of water from any stream or other source for the purpose specified in the enactment or agreement being a purpose relating to the functions of the authority with respect to water supply, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the said enactment or agreement or in this Act, the authority shall continue to be entitled to take that supply for that purpose, so, however, that they shall not be entitled to take in any year thereafter an amount of water greater than the amount they were entitled to take in the year immediately preceding the appointed day.
This is a new Subsection. The first part is merely machinery, and the necessity for this was brought to our notice by the Assessor of Public Undertakings in Scotland. This Amendment is required to guard against possible consequences of the dissolution of the special water supply districts. If a county council are unable to use their existing source of supply to supply water outside the present special districts the general effect of the Clause would thus be nullified.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(EXPENSES OF JOINT WATER BOARDS.)

Amendment made, in page 7, line 1, leave out "net."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

CLAUSE 11.—(EXPENSES OF LOCAL AUTHORITY SUPPLING WATER IN DISTRICT OF ANOTHER AUTHORITY.)

Amendment made, in page 7, line 31, leave out "net."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 7, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(3) If in any particular case the authorities concerned are satisfied that the allocation in manner provided by the last foregoing Subsection of the expenses of a supplying authority among the local authorities concerned would impose on any of those authorities (including the supplying authority) a financial burden greater than they could reasonably be expected to bear they may enter into an agreement for the purpose of regulating the manner in which the expenses of the supplying authority in that case are to be defrayed, and if the Secretary of State, being satisfied as aforesaid, makes an order approving the agreement the terms of the agreement shall during such period as may be specified in the agreement come in place of the provisions of the last foregoing Subsection.
This Amendment is designed to meet the desire of the local authorities that it should not be necessary every year to deal with this particular method of allocation, and it provides that if an agreement is made between the authorities it may remain operative for a number of years to avoid the necessity of going through the whole process each year, as would be required as the Clause stands.

Commander Galbraith: I will just say that so far as we are concerned this Amendment is quite unexceptionable.

Mr. McKie: I also wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having been so good as to introduce this new subsection. The effect of these clarifying words will ease the somewhat troubled minds of certain local authorities who are concerned with supplying water outside their own particular orbit. I, representing as I do in this House smaller local authorities, have a special interest. Those of us who represent smaller local authorities will know of cases where these local authorities are supplying water outwith their own bounds, and who may be within the sphere of very much larger and richer circumferences, if I may so express it, of local government in Scot-

land. I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), representing as he does one of the Divisions of the Scottish metropolis, who has great experience of local government in the capital city of Scotland, will at once agree that this is a most necessary insertion, because he will be able to recall to mind cases—and one case in particular—where the local authority in Edinburgh, the capital city of Scotland, is receiving water from within the bounds of a very poor local authority, namely the County Council of Peebles. It would be out of Order for me to go in any great detail into the somewhat sorry state of affairs that has developed in that direction; I merely mention that by way of illustration.
The right hon. Gentleman has now come forward and is good enough to include this new Subsection, which will give us at all events a period of stability—I think I heard him say 10 years—within which both authorities—the supplying authorities, which in most cases will be the smaller authorities, and the supplied authorities, which in most cases will be the bigger authorities—will know how they stand. This Clause raises far-reaching issues, and I, representing a Division in which there are two small authorities, am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has seen wisdom after consultation. The further we go on this Report stage the more are we seeing the value of consultation with local authorities. I am glad that, after consultation on this specific point, the Secretary of State has allowed us—if I may associate my hon. Friends with the local authorities—to know for a period of years just where we shall stand.

Mr. Rankin: The formula dealing with payments is fairly strict, and I take it that in the first order presented, there will be room for flexibility between the supplying and the supplied authorities in the payments that they require to make. If that flexibility is allowed under the order, away from the strict formula of the Bill, I am sure we should all welcome it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 45, leave out "the foregoing provisions," and insert "Subsection (2) or Subsection (3)."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

CLAUSE 12.—(PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS 10 AND 11.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 20, leave out "local," and insert "supplying."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 9, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(7) The provisions of Subsection (2) of Section nine of this Act (which subsection provides for the making of regulations with respect to the payment of compensation for loss of office or diminution of emoluments in the case of officers or servants employed for the purposes of special water supply districts) shall apply in relation to officers or servants of a joint water board or of a supplying authority who suffer loss of employment or diminution of emoluments by reasons of the provisions of Subsection (1) of Section ten of this Act or of Subsection (1) of Section eleven thereof as they apply in relation to the officers or servants mentioned in the said Subsection (2) with the substitution, however, for references to the council of the county within which the special district was situated of references to the joint water board or the supplying authority as the case may be by whom the officers or servants concerned were employed.
The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that the Secretary of State may make regulations providing for compensation to be paid to employees of joint water boards or supplying authorities who lose their employment as a result of this Bill. In Clause 9 (2) provision is already made for the compensation of employees of special water districts who lose their employment as a result of the operations of this Bill. It has been pointed out that over and above those people for whom provision has already been made, there may be employees of joint water boards or supplying authorities who would be in a like position. There is no justification for discrimination between the two types of persons, and we have therefore put down this Amendment to include in the powers of the Secretary of State further powers to make regulations to include these employees in any compensation provisions.

Commander Galbraith: This is really remedying what was originally an omission; it is a correction. It was always intended that all these employees who were displaced should receive compensation. We are glad that this defect has been discovered and put right.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(PROVISIONS AS TO VALUATION ROLL.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 3, leave out from beginning to "occupied" and insert:
premises to which that section applies and which are."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, at the end, to insert:
(7) For the purpose of enabling the assessor to effect any apportionment required to be effected by him under this section the local water authority shall furnish him with such information as to the premises in their district supplied with water and as to such other matters as he may reasonably require for that purpose.
The object of this Amendment is to put on the local water authority the duty of telling the assessor what premises—for instance, farm dwellings—are supplied with water, and of giving him any further information that he may require in connection with the making of apportionments of annual values under the Bill. The Amendment is really made necessary as a result of observations by the Association of Local Land Valuation Assessors in Scotland, who pointed out that not all the assessors are local authority officials, and that therefore the Bill should ensure that all the necessary information is passed to them.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 19.—(PROVISIONS AS TO LEVYING OF, AND EXEMPTIONS FROM, RATES.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 13, line 24, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 31, and to insert:
(2) The amount of the annual value of any lands and heritages according to which the domestic water rate is leviable in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall, if it contains a fractional part of a pound, be subject for the purpose of the levy of that rate to the following adjustments, that is to say—

(a) in the case of lands and heritages in the district of a county council in which there is in force a local enactment with respect to the adjustment of annual values containing a fractional part of a pound for the purpose of the levy of rates, it shall be subject to adjustment in accordance with the provisions of that local enactment;
(b) in the case of lands and heritages in the district of a county council in which no such local enactment as aforesaid is in force, it shall, if it includes a fraction of five shillings, be increased or reduced as the case may be to the nearest complete five shillings, or it the fraction is two shillings and six pence the fraction shall be disregarded;


(c) in the case of lands and heritages in the district of any other local authority, it shall be subject to any adjustment required to be made in accordance with the provisions of section forty-five of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903, or of any corresponding provision of a local Act in force in that district."

It will be remembered that in Committee the question was raised whether in the calculation of rates on the gross annual value of lands and heritages it would be possible to agree that the amount should be rounded off. In the case of counties it is proposed by this Amendment to round it off to 5s., in the case of burghs to 10s., and of course in appropriate cases to half-a-crown. I think this meets the objection raised by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) in dealing with the question of gross annual value in Clause 2.

Mr. Maclay: As my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife is abroad and therefore unable to be present, I should like to say that I am sure he will be grateful to the Minister for moving this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 33, leave out "local" and insert "any."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

CLAUSE 23.—(POWER TO SURVEY AND SEARCH FOR WATER ON LAND PROPOSED TO BE PURCHASED.)

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 16, line 2 after the second "and," to insert "subsections (3) to (7) of."
This again is being moved in response to requests from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were rather worried in case an occupier did not get sufficient notice of the intended entry upon his lands for surveying. We thought that the Bill covered this point, but in order to make sure we are putting in this Amendment.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for this Amendment, which goes half way towards doing what we asked. He will recall that we asked for 48 hours, and he is pleased to give us 24. This will be generally accepted, and will make farmers and those concerned feel that there is some reasonable security and that people will not just walk in without giving

due notice. In Committee we had a lot of discussion about postcards and other means of notice, but it is not necessary to go into the question of warning now. We on this side are grateful for the Amendment.

Mr. McKie: I desire to join in the chorus of approval of this Amendment. I rather wish that the right hon. Gentleman would not treat this as a small matter. He said—and I hope I am not misquoting him—that it was in response to the appeals which were made from this side of the House that this Amendment is now to be incorporated in the Bill, but that in his opinion the Clause was quite adequate as it was originally presented.

Mr. Woodburn: I did not say it was quite adequate. I said that so far as we could see, this point was actually covered, but in order to clear away any doubt we proposed to insert the Amendment.

Mr. McKie: I am very glad to have that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman. I always dislike very much misquoting the right hon. Gentleman, the Lord Advocate, or any other of the hon. Gentlemen on the Front Treasury Bench. The Secretary of State for Scotland may think that this matter was covered in the original Clause. Perhaps he is of that opinion, because he has had a conversation with his more subtle companion on the Treasury Bench, who is learned in the law, but to us laymen on this side it did not appear as simple as it did to the right hon. Gentleman and obviously to the Lord Advocate. If it did not appear to us so simple to understand, how does he suppose that the farming community of Scotland—because they are the people who are going to be affected—would receive this Clause without this addition defining the giving of notice?
The right hon. Gentleman himself by this time must be well aware of the state of feeling in the agricultural community of Scotland on points such as this. There is nothing a farmer dislikes more, whether he be an owner or merely a tenant, than to have people walk over his land without knowing what they are going to do. They may be surveying for water or they may just be walking about satisfying themselves on some subject which does not seem obvious to the owner of the land. I suffered from that kind of thing


during the war. We had hoped once the war was over that we should not have to endure that condition of things, and in peace-time it is very necessary to have words such as these introduced into this Bill, so that those affected are likely to be notified before people come on to their land to make surveys and so forth. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having brought forward this Amendment.

Sir W. Darling: I do not join in the congratulations of my hon. Friends. The House must have forgotten the circumstances which lay behind this Amendment. In Committee upstairs it was argued that people in rural district should require a reasonable length of notice of the intending visit of the surveying official. The time embodied in the Amendment, which was moved upstairs, was 48 hours, and now the Government have given us a concession of 24 hours. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that 24 hours' notice to a farmer, whose posts are somewhat scattered and irregular—he does not wait on his doorstep for the arrival of the postman—is scarcely adequate. To some 48 hours would seem little enough.
Here is a rural area which has waited for half a century for a supply of water. His Majesty's Government, backed by the power and authority of this Bill, after these long years of neglect, decide by way of notice to hand a postcard to the Post Office, which has to deliver it may be through floods and storms and railway mishaps, and ultimately it is borne by an elderly gentleman on a bicycle, 17 or 20 miles to the farmer or his spouse. All that postcard says is that within 24 hours—and by the time it is received the 24 hours are up—a surveying party will arrive to look at the water supply.
This is all the concession which His Majesty's Government have given us. They think 24 hours' notice is all that is necessary for these expensive and important developments. This is an important matter, or we would not have had this Bill before us. It is very important to those people who have been flooded out for half a century, or, on the other hand, starved of water. If His Majesty's Government are going to operate with such celerity in this matter, I only hope that they will display the same celerity in other directions. To give

us but 24 hours' notice of their intentions is not satisfactory. I still support the original proposal that 48 hours should be given. Twenty-four hours' notice is far too short for such an important matter as that with which this Clause deals.

Commander Galbraith: I am rather in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W Darling) and the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) as to the number of hours' notice which should be given. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman when he gives permission for these visits to be paid will see that the local authority gives the notice, otherwise some very unfortunate results might occur. I have had my attention drawn in recent days to two or three instances where gentlemen in official positions have been found wandering about the countryside. Nobody expected them and objection might have been taken to their presence. In those circumstances they are in some danger, because it happens that in Scotland, strangers may find themselves in an awkward position if they wander about without being able to explain at once who they are and where they come from. It is for their protection as much as anything else that I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to make certain that notice is given in a proper manner and not mishandled in any way.

The Lord Advocate: I was going to say that the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) had been a little precipitate. I am sorry and surprised to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollock (Commander Galbraith) following his bad example, because if hon. Members will look at the Clause as a whole they will see that prior to this taking place 14 days' notice must be given to the occupier of the premises to the effect that the Secretary of State is granting the application to survey the land.

Commander Galbraith: Is that a notice to the occupier of the land that the water surveyor is coming to look at it?

The Lord Advocate: There is 14 days' notice given that such a survey is likely to occur. The present notice is one of 24 hours that the survey of which intimation has previously been given will


take place on a particular day and at a particular time. My right hon. Friend pointed out that there was some doubt whether or not this point was already provided for in the principal Act. To remove that doubt we are seeking to incorporate this Amendment. It will make sure that the occupier of the premises, who is already aware of the intention of making a survey of the land, will get this additional warning.

Sir W. Darling: If I may speak again, I would ask whether the 14 days' notice is not in respect of the large-scale survey, and what amount of time is likely to elapse between that notice of the large-scale survey and the ultimate decision to deal with the individual? It might well be two or three years. As a farmer, I might be well aware of the large-scale survey, of which 14 days' notice has been given, but anything may happen in the vicissitudes of life. Three years later, or it might be five years later, am I to get a postcard saying that in 24 hours a water surveyor will descend upon me?
Only last week I saw the officer of a local authority. He said that he was making a survey for a new sewage works. I asked him when it was likely to come into being. He said: "Maybe in five years or seven years from now." Is that parallel to be followed in regard to water? Is there no prescribed space of time between the 14 days' notice and the postcard which follows, at some distant time?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 6, at end, insert:
(3) Admission to any land shall not be demanded as of right in the exercise of such right as aforesaid unless twenty-four hours notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier:
Provided that where notice is given in accordance with this subsection on the first occasion on which the right of entry is exercised, no further notice shall be required before entering on the land on a subsequent occasion in connection with the completion of the survey."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

CLAUSE 24.—(CHARGES FOR WATER SUPPLIED BY METER.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 16, line 37, to leave out from "(1)," to "local," and to insert "Every."
A point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for

Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. M. MacPherson) was whether the original provisions of Clause 24 affected the provisions of Section 11 of the principal Act. By this Amendment and the two subsequent Amendments we propose to recast Clause 24 with a view to marrying the provisions of the Clause as they originally stood with Section 11 of the principal Act. The effect of the Amendments is to leave untouched the rights conferred by Section 11 but requires every local authority to prepare and publish a schedule of the terms upon which they normally supply water by meter or otherwise. We preserve the right of the local water authority and of the consumer under Section 11, but require every local water authority to record in a register particulars of every agreement made by them to supply water upon terms and conditions other than those published and their schedule of charges. It finally provides that the register shall be open for inspection.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 38, leave out from beginning, to "shall," in line 40, and insert:
shall prepare and maintain a schedule of the terms and conditions on which they are prepared in general to give a supply of water by meter or otherwise, and that schedule."—[The Lord Advocate.]

5.15 p.m.

Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 42, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 4, on page 17, and to insert:
(2) Nothing in the foregoing Subsection shall be construed as prejudicing the rights or duties under Section eleven of the principal Act of a local water authority or of any person supplied or proposed to be supplied by them under that Section.
(3) Every local authority shall keep a register in which they shall enter particulars of every agreement entered into by them after the commencement of this Act for the giving of a supply of water for purposes other than domestic purposes to any person on terms and conditions other than the terms and conditions for the time being set forth in the schedule maintained by them under Subsection (1) of this Section.
(4) The register kept under the last foregoing Subsection shall be kept at the office of the authority and shall be open at all reasonable hours to the inspection of all ratepayers within the district of the authority without payment of any fee."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Mr. Maclay: I am glad that it is proposed to insert this Amendment in the


Bill. It goes a long way towards clearing up the point which, I understand, arose upon an earlier Amendment. It has not been at all clear up to now whether the Bill applies only to domestic water. I would feel diffident about advancing that point if it were not that I hold in my hand a copy of a memorandum by a very competent town clerk of a small burgh. I believe that it is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the Bill. I am taking the opportunity of the moving of this Amendment to ask whether Section 11 still applies in every possible way, and nothing in the Bill takes anything away from it; in other words, that the Bill is entirely for domestic water.

The Lord Advocate: The Lord Advocate indicated assent.

Mr. Maclay: I am glad to know that for purposes of clarity. I had already myself failed to understand, and now somebody who is much more competent than I am, has explained it. Would it be possible to make that point absolutely clear in the Preamble or in the Short Title of the Bill?

The Lord Advocate: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman in regard to the preservation of the rights under Section 11, is dealt with in terms in subsection (2) of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 26.—(TERMINATION OF RIGHT TO SUPPLY OF WATER ON SPECIAL TERMS.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 18, line 5, at the end to insert:
In no case shall such compensation exceed twenty years' purchase price of the value of the concession at the time it was obtained by the present holder of the vested interest.
The Amendment deals with a question of compensation and the right to supply water on special terms, which received very considerable discussion in the Committee. As the result of that discussion and the fairly widespread concern at the width of the Clause, the Lord Advocate said that he would look into the matter again and see whether he could devise a means whereby the width of the Clause would be limited. I was disappointed not to see upon the Paper an Amendment with that purpose in view. We have therefore tried to frame an Amendment which will limit the amount of

compensation in regard to the termination of these rights.
We start with the assumption that not more than 20 years' purchase price of the value of the concession, at the time it was obtained by the present holder of the vested interest, should be paid in, respect of those rights. During the Committee stage, my right hon. Friend argued that we should expect Subsection (3) to have reference only to the present value. He quoted in support of his argument the point that steps were taken under the various nationalisation Acts to compensate the owners of undertakings at present-day values.
The analogy is quite false. In the case of the undertakings we are buying physical assets with a profit-earning capacity, or a potential profit-earning capacity, but in respect of these rights we are paying to abolish a privilege obtained by virtue of the fact that a local authority had probably had to go miles away in order to obtain the necessary water for its population. The owners of these concessions have not created anything. They do not make the rain fall on their ground, although by certain legal processes they have obtained possession of the ground through which the pipes have to pass to the large cities, but they have done nothing——

Sir W. Darling: They have supplied the pipes.

Mr. Willis: They have not even supplied the pipes because the local authorities have usually supplied them. My right hon. Friend also gave the analogy of the owners of the coal royalties. Even that has not been accepted by the Government because we approach the question of other minerals under the Town and Country Planning Act from an altogether different angle. Therefore, those are not good arguments.
We ought to accept the basis of 20 years valuation at the time when the concession was obtained by the present holder. The Amendment suggests that the compensation should not be more than 20 years purchase price. During the Committee stage my right hon. Friend said that it would be impossible to go back and discover what the concession was worth when it was first obtained. Under the Amendment there is no need to go back and find out what the value was if the concession was


obtained more than 20 years ago because if the person has enjoyed it for over 20 years, he will not be entitled to compensation. That is the implication. He will only get compensation for that period of the 20 years which he has still to run. That is what we should like to see. We should consider that to be a just settlement of claims.
My right hon. Friend also produced a number of other arguments with most of which we are not concerned today because we are not considering the rights of the owners; all we are considering is the limit to be placed on the amount of compensation payable. My right hon. Friend ought to give this matter further consideration because it has given a number of people concern. The County Councils Association were concerned about it when the Bill was before the Committee and certain members of local authorities have spoken to me about it and the matter concerned the Committee very much. No one can deny that considerable concern is felt about the whole question of compensation. In view of all these considerations, will my right hon. Friend try to find words limiting the amount of compensation, if he will not accept the ones we suggest, and have them inserted in another place?

Mr. Rankin: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is a very mild Amendment, and from what the Lord Advocate said during the Committee stage I am certain that it will win his approval and also that of the Secretary of State for Scotland. They have indicated that they are with us in spirit and the Amendment provides words which will enable them to give body to that spirit. They are simple words and will resolve the real difficulties which the Lord Advocate showed he had from the legal point of view in seeking a solution which would be satisfactory both to himself and to those of us who support him. I hope that from that point of view alone we shall have his support today. We are giving him a solution on a platter and I hope that he accepts it.
It is important that we should realise what we are doing when we pay compensation to the landowners in these cases. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) said,

comparisons had been made with other nationalised services, but no comparison exists with this type of service. A natural physical process is going on. The waters of the ocean evaporate, not by any effort of the landowner who does not even kindle a fire or spark a match to help in that evaporation. To begin with, he did not put the waters where they are. According to the Book of Genesis, they were put there for him. They evaporate and the moisture rises up into the upper air where it is cooled. Again, no effort is required on the landowner's part, and he has no cooling processes of any type in the upper air. In the upper air the moisture condenses. The landowner has no part in increasing the density of the clouds. The clouds fall and hit the hills, which the landowner never put there. The rain then trickles down the sides of the hills, and the landowner has no part to play even in that. We are told that the waters, like the love of God, stream from the hills and flow on to the plains. All the landowner does is to step forward, like the old toll man on the road, and make his charge for something in bringing about which he did not even play the simplest part.
That is what will happen if we agree to compensate these people. It is fantastic that they should even make a claim. I discovered a fortnight ago that in Scotland there is a landlord who gets compensation in respect of the sand on the seashore. If anyone takes away a bucket of sand from the seashore he is compensated for it——

Mr. McKie: Sand from above high water.

Mr. Rankin: Any state of the water, high or low. If even a salmon trout is taken out of the sea at high or low water—I know that I am invading the province of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) who knows more about these things than I do, but what I am saying is true of a certain landlord——

5.30 p.m.

Mr. McKie: The hon. Gentleman talked about the sand on the seashore. He left out of consideration tidal conditions, and I venture to point out that he may be right, but that it could be only above high water mark.

Mr. Rankin: That was what I always understood until a week ago last Friday


when I visited the little village of Lamlash, where I found something different. Even the sand on the shore belongs to the landowner there, and in the little village of Caticol the pebbles are being removed from the beach at 1s. per ton, and thereby endangering the stability of the road and the village.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman is becoming very much out of Order.

Mr. Rankin: Yes, Sir, I am sorry. I realised that I was a little out of Order, but I was keeping near the water. I do not propose to pursue the point any further. We have established it fully, and I feel certain that it will be reinforced by other hon. Members that this is a mild yet effective solution to the problem of compensating the landlord for the loss of these rights.

Mr. Gilzean: I join with my hon. Friends in appealing to the Secretary of State to consider this Amendment. I know that my right hon. Friend, and others in a like position, are apt to take a severely practical view of these questions and to ask themselves what is the common practice, and to be governed by that outlook. It appears to us, however, that there is a great deal to be said for limiting the amount of compensation to be paid in this regard. It appears to us, further, that 20 years is a fair proposal. I make no pretence to a tremendous amount of knowledge but I had 21 years of local government experience, and my observation taught me that whenever a local government went into the market for anything, it was invariably assumed that they could be challenged with a fairly high demand, presumably because, the charge being spread over the community, the community would not feel it in the same way as an individual.
In connection with supplying necessary water to large communities, at once it jumps to the minds of those who have bare hills and bare valleys, and all that is associated with carrying water 20 or 30 or 40 miles, "Here is our opportunity, do not let us miss it." Consequently we find that all sorts of extraordinary demands are made. Therefore we suggest, not that these people should be unfairly treated, but that a reasonable limit should be put on anything that might be paid. Generally speaking, in many other connections

20 years is looked upon as being fair average compensation for any change that might take place. It is on those grounds, and in the hope that the Secretary of State will see the sweet reasonableness of this proposal, that I support the Amendment.

Mr. William Ross: I am surprised and a little disappointed that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not intervene before this point to say that he accepted this Amendment, especially after the academic and lyrical explanation of the problem given by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). We base our Amendment on the words of the Secretary of State on the Second Reading when he said:
Local authorities feel, quite naturally that such obligations have become unreasonably onerous. While they continue, those benefiting under them will be freed from the obligation to pay the domestic water rate under this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1399.]
If these obligations have become unreasonably onerous, what justification is there for the Secretary of State for Scotland digging his heels in and saying that we cannot depart from what we have laid down on compensation terms? He has laid down this:
The amount of the compensation to be paid … shall be assessed by reference to the value of the rights secured under the obligation as at the date of the making of the order. …
Since he has terminated any extension of the privilege, it really means that they have to be compensated at the value of the privilege as at 7th October, 1948. That means that they will be compensated on the very values which he himself admits are unreasonably onerous. I think his failure is that he is only taking one thing into consideration as regards compensation, and that is the present value. In this Amendment we are asking him to take into consideration how long this privilege has been enjoyed. We might have gone much further and asked him to trail through the records, of history and find when these privileges were first exacted, because in many cases they were exacted.

Mr. McKie: Mr. McKie indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) may shake his head, but he knows that this is actually what


happened. Let him consult the books of reference with regard to the efforts of Glasgow to get water——

Mr. Willis: Tom Johnston.

Mr. Ross: I need not go into that. The landlord had on his estate what they wanted for their town, and the landlord, for the simple right of taking that water, exacted from them a promise to supply water free. That, when it was exacted, may have been quite a trivial matter, but the Secretary of State himself instanced a case where one local authority is providing daily free of charge 500,000 gallons of water to five estates. Now he comes along and says that we must compensate them under this high level 500,000 gallons.
All that we ask here is that he should take into consideration, not the value of the privilege when first granted, but to go back 20 years, take the value then, and for that to be the maximum. If someone bought over a new piece of land, and thereby certain privileges, in intervening years, he should get a greater compensation than the person who has held the privilege for all the 20 years. If the Secretary of State looked at it on those lines, and remembered his own insistence on doing justice to the ratepayers and to the local authorities, forgetting this almost unnecessarily touching consideration for vested interests in this matter, as well as in other matters, and concentrated on justice to the ratepayers, he would, without any hesitation, accept our Amendment, or find some means of getting one on similar lines on to the Order Paper.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I support this Amendment on other grounds. It seems to me to be based on the different value of money at different times, and to take the view that an interest of this kind, acquired long ago when money was more valuable than it is today, should be the subject of compensation at a higher rate, whereas an interest of this kind which was more recently acquired, when money is of less value, should be compensated at a lower rate. I think that is right and just.
Moreover, I think it right that there should be a limit to the amount of compensation. Twenty years' purchase is the purchase price of a fairly well secured

ground rent. Why should the owner of an interest of this kind get more compensation than the owner of a well secured ground rent would get? People acquire interests of this kind in one of two ways: either by purchase or by inheritance. Those who acquire by purchase acquire with their eyes open—they know what is the value; and I do not see, in the circumstances, why they should be allowed to get more than 20 years' purchase. On the other hand, persons who acquire by inheritance do so without any expenditure of their own—it is a windfall to them; and I do not see why they should get more than 20 years' purchase. Whichever way one looks at it, it seems to me right to impose this limit of 20 years' purchase. The whole philosophical basis, if I may put it that way, of the Amendment is that it is based on a sliding scale relating to the value of money, which is inherently right and just.

Mr. Woodburn: During the Committee stage of the Bill my hon. Friends behind me raised this question of the compensation that ought to be given in the case of the taking over of these rights. As was stated at that time, when we take something in isolation there seems to be a plausible case for saying why the compensation or the arrangements provided in the Bill might lead to more compensation than my hon. Friends think is desirable or just. Some of them, at least, said that what they wanted was to be fair; but being fair in the matter of compensation is obviously not a matter which can be decided by the buyer without any reference to the seller.

Mr. Ross: And with reference to what is being sold or bought.

Mr. Woodburn: In other words, if those of us who were born before the 1914 war go into shops today we have the greatest difficulty in adjusting ourselves to the prices of goods. It is very difficult for us to think that we ought to pay the prices which are shown.

Sir W. Darling: Fifty-Shilling Tailors.

Mr. Woodburn: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in buying his suits for 50s. In any case, there is this difficulty of adjusting ourselves as between the buyer and the seller.
I promised to look into this question, and have done so very carefully. I find


that I come up against a principle. The party to which I belong decided many years ago, in regard to the taking over of property of all kinds, that they would give due compensation; but that cannot be measured by the person who takes over the property without reference to the interest or the rights of the person whose property is being sacrificed. My hon. Friends have dealt with one or two types of rights—by inheritance or by the fact that a person is the owner of land—but however that right has been obtained, it is a right which we are taking over; and that right, like every other right, is measured on its value today and not 20 or 50 years ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "On, the legal right."] The legal right is what we are dealing with today. On looking into this question I found that if we were to depart from the principles hitherto observed by the Government in compensation for property, there would be a reaction on all future compensation; in other words, we could not alter the principle for this one item alone.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Willis: Would my right hon. Friend say what principle? We are not departing from the principle of compensation. All we are deciding is the basis of the compensation. In each Measure passed during the term of this Government there has been a different basis of compensation.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that under other Statutes similar limits have been laid down?

Mr. Woodburn: My legal advice is rather different from that offered by the hon. Gentleman regarding legal rights. I must confine myself, therefore, to the advice which I have received. We are dealing with a principle of compensation for a right. The principle that it should be fair has been accepted. In the Bill the first principle of fairness is that a local authority can buy these rights from the existing owner by agreement. The terms of the agreement are not laid down. If both sides, in measuring up the circumstances, think that the terms suggested by my hon. Friend are fair, there is nothing to hinder the local authority and the owner accepting these terms as fair. On the other hand, if they cannot agree and if the local authority decides

upon acquiring these rights by compulsion, then, of course, failing agreement, the matter would be subjected to arbitration. That method is accepted not only in the trade union world, but in the country generally, as the fairest way of settling a dispute between two parties. It is quite impossible to depart from the principles laid down in the Bill without involving us in a whimsical variation of principles for every type of legislation which involves compensation.

Mr. Willis: I still have not had an answer to my question to my right hon. Friend—to which principle is he referring? Compensation has been based on different principles in almost every Act passed by the present Government. What we are asking now is which principle is to be applied here. We are not suggesting that any new principles should be introduced.

Mr. Woodburn: Methods of assessment have been put into Bills to suit the particular circumstances with which we were dealing. The principles of fair compensation, however, have not been departed from. Let me explain the position to my hon. Friends in this way. Suppose we take the land from which water flows; clearly, the water and the land are almost inseparable. If we are to apply these principles to the water rights, then the same principles clearly might apply to the land rights. My hon. Friends suggested also that nobody had ever done anything to these water rights or to help the water supply. That, of course, is not quite the case. Although there are not a great number of these rights in existence, their variety is almost infinite.
I think it was the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) who described the Amendment as a simple one. It is too simple, as are the examples which have been quoted. The matter is, in fact, much more complicated and complex. In any event, I state quite definitely, on behalf of the Government, that we cannot agree to alter the principles of fair and due compensation for the rights of property when transferred to the State. In our view, and as we are advised by our advisers, the procedure suggested would involve not only this particular variation but a departure from the principles hitherto followed by the Govern-


ment in giving due compensation for all rights that have been taken over.
The analogy of coal has been given. Wherever the rights in coal have been proved they have been compensated for; where they have not been proved, they have not been compensated for. Similarly this question also is one of proved rights which are legally identifiable and which can be established either to the arbitrator or to the court. I ask my hon. Friends to regard this not as a whimsical matter dealing with an isolated question like water, but as a matter of principle which applies to the whole attitude of the Government on compensation. We are not prepared, just for the sake of one whimsical instance which may be drawn to our notice, to depart from general principles laid down by the Government.
It is true that local authorities were attracted by the proposal to reduce the compensation to 20 years. Therefore, when I met their representatives, I took the opportunity of discussing the matter with them and pointing out the implications that in the future it would alter the basis of compensation, which might affect them as sellers, as well as buyers. After consideration and discussion, without anyone dissenting, they came to the conclusion that they were prepared to accept the procedure in the Bill as the right procedure and were not prepared to jeopardise the general principles upon which compensation was based, which would, of course, affect them in many matters dealing with property in their areas. I regret that I cannot comply with the desire of my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment, but must ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I did not intend to intervene, but I do not think the House can accept the argument which has just been enunciated by the Secretary of State for Scotland. One would have assumed that some kind of broad principle in regard to property holders had been laid down in the Ten Commandments.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: "Thou shalt not steal."

Mr. Hughes: I am coming to "Thou shalt not steal." I think the Government should at least be prepared to learn from

experience. The experience of the various nationalised industries does not seem to lead us to believe that the way we have settled compensation for the nationalisation of various industries should be unalterable, or that we should apply to coal, transport, electricity and bus companies the principle applied to water, just because there was an abstract principle and some rights were forfeited. The Secretary of State mentioned the case of the mines, as if the basis of compensation laid down for coalmines should be followed in applying the principle to water supplies. I thought he was most unfortunate in that analogy because the more one looks at the amounts which have been paid in compensation for the coalmines, the more one realises that too much compensation has been given and that the terms have been far too generous.

Mr. Woodburn: I think that if my hon. Friend examines the facts in regard to the nationalisation of coal, he will find that the State made a very handsome profit on the transaction.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, but if the Secretary of State would pursue the matter a little further, he would find that the sum of £164 million paid for the coalmines is excessive and far too generous. I would point to what has gone on in the coalmining industry in the last few months and how shares have gone up since the gentleman who advised the Government on the matter went to one of the companies which have been compensated. If my right hon. Friend considers that he would not be quite so sure that we made such an acceptable bargain. If the Secretary of State for Scotland read the financial columns of the "Scotsman" only last Saturday, he will have seen a paragraph headed "Coal Shares Very Active." I do not see why coal shares should be very active.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman cannot go too far in that example. It can be taken as an example only.

Mr. Hughes: I was not going to elaborate it too much. The analogy of coal was introduced by the Secretary of State and I would not have dreamt of proceeding on this line of argument unless I had been tempted by that invitation. The analogy of coal has been cited and, without going into detail, I would mention


the case of transport and the recent case in which a Question was put in the House about £23 million paid to Scottish Motor Transport by way of compensation for buses. When we look at what has been done and judge of what is to be our line of action in compensation for water supplies based on experience of what has happened in other industries, we should come to the conclusion that we ought to be a little more careful before proceeding to act as generously in regard to water as we have acted in regard to transport and electricity.
I am afraid we are burdening the nationalised industries by too much compensation. Every time the consumer buys a ton of coal, he is paying compensation to the coalowners. Every time he pays his electricity bill, he is paying compensation to the electricity industry, and every time he goes on a bus in Scotland he pays excessive compensation to the bus companies. Now we have a state of affairs in which one will hesitate to turn on a tap in case one is supporting excessive payments to the landlord.
The way in which water supplies have been monopolised by various interests which we are now compensating is a very sorry story. Everywhere in country districts in Scotland one finds a grievance against those who have cornered water supplies. I will not deal with Glasgow, but the case of Loch Katrine is a classical case. The water was sold at an excessive price and another excessive price was asked in order that houses could be built on the side of the loch and the sewage be prevented from entering the loch. If the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) were here, he could tell a remarkable story of the negotiations between the Duke of Argyll and Campbeltown Town Council in regard to water. Everyone in Campbeltown and Argyll knows of the scandal of excessive payments the town council had to make for the supply of pure water. In Ayrshire, when the water supply was brought into the district, a pipe was laid along the river. That was in no way due to the enterprise or goodwill of the landlord, but to the town council, by means of a wayleave to the Marquis of Bute of 1s. 6d. a yard.
The time has come to call a halt to excessive compensation to various interests which are nationalised. Let the Scottish Members give a lead to the Government We have heard so much from

the other benches about shareholders in various industries not being treated generously, but I should say they are being treated far too generously. Where there is hardship it should be stopped, but the time has come to stop a ramp.

Mr. McKie: I was very glad to find the Secretary of State standing by his guns and I hope he will maintain that attitude, in spite of anything just said by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), or anything which may be said in the course of subsequent Debate from those sitting behind the right hon. Gentleman who were elected to be his supporters. In the Debate upon this Amendment we have seen spectacularly what we have seen for a long time—a clash between Right and Left. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, but it is rather a sickly smile. He knows that my words are true.

6.0 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: Is not my hon. Friend confused? Does he not mean a clash between right and wrong?

Mr. McKie: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for putting it in that more graphic way. Those who sit on the benches behind the Treasury Bench are often in the wrong. This is a glaring illustration of it.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire who represents a constituency immediately to the north of mine, went out of his way to introduce a number of irrelevancies. He discoursed at great length on the consultation given under the Coal Industry (Nationalisation) Act and he was gently chided by you, Sir, for going some way beyond the limits allowed by this Amendment. Even when he confined himself to the question of water, he drew, as I think he will be bound to agree if he reflects, an exaggerated picture of what might happen when some one in some county or urban district went to turn on a tap. I hope and believe that he is wrong.
I do not deny that in the past there have been cases in which rights to obtain water have been rather unnecessarily withheld, but not for compensation. It was generally due to a desire not to have amenities interrupted and not to any desire to be grasping about compensation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me about that. The hon. Member gave


us one or two illustrations. I could give quite a contrary illustration if I cared to do so, but I do not choose to indulge in personalities or give offence in this House.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will maintain the attitude about this Amendment that he did when he had a very rough passage with his hon. Friends in the Committee room. They exhibited signs of turbulence this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman is most certainly in the right in this Question and his hon. Friends to whom I have referred are most certainly in the wrong. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire talked about the Ten Commandments. There is one which says "Thou shalt not steal." While I do not wish to exaggerate, I consider that the 20 years limit he suggested would be close to stealing. It would be a very grave step in the wrong direction. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman laying it down so clearly that his party had accepted the principle of compensation, for quite clearly no hon. Member behind him this afternoon had bothered to look into the Clause sufficiently to see the point that free negotiations is, in the first instance, open to both sides, and if they cannot agree the arbiter is brought in. How can anyone object to arbitration? The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) seems to do so.

Mr. Willis: The Amendment only deals with Subsection (3), which concerns terminating the right by compulsion.

Mr. McKie: I am glad to have that point cleared up, but I do not think what the hon. Member has said detracts from the broad principle which I was endeavouring to enunciate, and which the right hon. Gentleman enunciated.
I was about to deal with the changing values of money. We hear a lot of people on the opposite side of the House who belong to the intelligentsia of the Socialist Party, and this afternoon has been no exception, give vent to a kind of muddled economic thinking. The right hon. Gentleman was quite clear. The Secretary of State himself said that if we were to make this limit of compensation with regard to water we should be touching the land system of this country. The name of Mr. Thomas Johnston has been

bandied about. I can remember him as a Private Member of this House in the 1935 Parliament, introducing a Private Member's Motion one Wednesday, which called for the nationalisation of the land of Britain. Mr. Thomas Johnston made it plain—this was in 1936 or 1937—that nothing less than 22 years purchase would be fair.
I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite to reflect that such an eminent person would not approve of the kind of economic theories as those put forward from the benches opposite this afternoon. Of that I am certain. When one visualises how values have changed since then, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will maintain and stiffen his attitude. If it is necessary, and if his honourable and so-called supporters desire to carry their Amendment to a Division, I shall certainly give the Secretary of State my support.

Commander Galbraith: I have not previously intervened because I thought it as well that this matter should be thrashed out between hon. Members on the other side of the House. But I wish it to be absolutely clear that we are entirely in agreement with the attitude taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have been rather shocked by the pleas put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who I believe have the highest moral principles, and yet have been completely led away by political prejudice, particularly against one class of persons—landowners.
This matter has nothing to do with physical processes whatever, I would remind the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). It has to do with the solemn obligation, an undertaking entered into between two parties, and that obligation the hon. Gentleman would now discard.

Mr. Rankin: These rights are in the long run based on simple scientific phenomena which occur in nature.

Commander Galbraith: That is the difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself. Apparently he cannot see the difference between a natural process and a solemn undertaking entered into between two parties. The two are completely different.
I was also completely surprised by words spoken by the hon. Member for


Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), when he said this right was now becoming unreasonably onerous. I know that he was quoting when he made that statement, but he based his argument on that fact—that as soon as one finds a contract into which one has entered is "unreasonably onerous" one is entitled to cast it aside without any consideration whatever. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider for a moment where that would lead him or any one else who adhered to principles of that kind.

Mr. Ross: While I agree that this matter is becoming unreasonably onerous, surely in the matter of termination justice for the buyer as well as the seller should be taken into consideration? One cannot ignore the nature of the right, which has been continuous and increasing all the time.

Commander Galbraith: In expressing agreement that there should be justice between buyer and seller I am content to leave the matter there.

Amendment negatived.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 18, line 27, at the end, to insert:
(7) An obligation to furnish a supply of water or to grant a wayleave for pipes or to give any other benefit or advantage to a local water authority entered into in consideration of an obligation to which this Section applies shall not be deemed to be terminated by reason only of the termination under this Section of the last mentioned obligation.
This Amendment is designed to remove doubts. It is really associated with the type of obligation which we have just been considering in the last Amendment, where there have been obligations to supply water in return for which certain privileges or rights were extended to the granter of the supply. It was felt that doubts might exist that if the obligation were terminated under Clause 26 on payment of the requisite compensation, the person who previously supplied the water might argue that, by the termination of that obligation, he in turn was free and relieved from the obligation to supply water or to grant wayleaves as the case might be. This Amendment is simply to ensure that at the termination of the obligation to supply free water or water at favourable rates the corresponding obligation on the part of the granter of the water will still remain.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 33.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Amendment made: In page 22, line 3, leave out "and."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 22, line 7, at the end, to insert:
and as if after the words 'such annual sum,'" there were inserted the words "not being less than fifteen shillings.
This Amendment and the previous Amendment go together. Their effect is to add to Section 77, Subsection (3) of the 1946 Act provision that the water charge shall not be less than 15s. Under Clause 2 of this Bill smallholders are exempt from the domestic water rate, and the local water authority will, as the result of this Amendment, be assured of the payment of at least 15s. for every smallholder for each dwelling house that is supplied. We had some considerable discussion on this question during the Second Reading and the Committee stage, and this Amendment is one that is in accord with the wishes of the local authorities' association.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 22, line 43, at the end to insert:
(12) Subsection (2) of Section eighty-eight of the principal Act shall have effect as if for the words 'the limits of supply' there were substituted the words the district.'
The attention of my right hon. Friend has been drawn to the fact that under Subsection (2) of Section 88 of the 1946 Act the local water authority would not be able to secure the amendment of the local Act relating to the supply of water by another authority to premises in their district when the premises concerned were within their limits of supply, and these words we find are unduly restrictive. I will give an example. The Aberdeen Town Council at present are authorised by their local Act to supply water in Aberdeen county and if Aberdeen county on some future date should be able to take over the supply for that part of the county themselves, they would not be able to secure the repeal of the relevant provisions in the local Act of the Aberdeen Town Council because the premises concerned, although in the district of the county, would be within the limits supplied by the town council. This Amendment puts the matter right.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 36.—(INTERPRETATION, CONSTRUCTION AND REPEALS.)

Amendment made: In page 24, line 14, leave out from beginning, to the end of line 15.—[Mr. Woodburn.]

6.15 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
It is appropriate that some of us should say a word about the provisions of the Bill as amended, before we send it along to another place. Hon. Members will appreciate that the Bill has three main parts. First, it provides for there being established in Scotland for the first time, a uniform system of rating and charging for water. May I say that we are all indebted to Sir Robert Bryce Walker and those who served with him on his committee, for the guidance we received from their report in this regard. Secondly, it increases by £20 million the total sum available in grants in aid of rural water supply and drainage schemes. Thirdly, it makes certain minor, but not unimportant amendments in the existing law of water supply.
It is desirable to understand and appreciate the relationship which this Bill has to Government policy in Scotland. The improvement of rural water supplies is an essential part of Scotland's national plan. We see efforts being made to build up a balanced economy in Scotland. Considerable industrial development is taking place. There is the development of hydro-electricity and agriculture and the fisheries, and much is being done to develop the essential services in the rural areas. This Bill is designed to make a valuable contribution to the welfare of those rural areas.
We all know that a proper supply of wholesome water is essential to farming, and particularly to the modern dairy farm where as much as 30 gallons a day is required for each milk cow. When we have in mind the high proportion of T.T. herds in Scotland and the public interest in increasing that proportion and keeping in the forefront in this regard, we quickly realise how desirable it is that rural water supplies shall be greatly augmented. The increased grants provided in the Bill will encourage local authorities to introduce regional water supply schemes and bring

in water to the more fertile low lying districts in which our dairy agriculture in particular is carried on.
This scheme will also make it possible to provide good modern houses for farm workers, with modern conveniences, which hitherto have not been possible. I would, however, hasten to qualify those remarks by saying that this development will take some little time. Perhaps the House will bear with me if I gave one short example of how a county will benefit from the Bill. In one agricultural county in Scotland which I have in mind—Berwickshire—half the parishes in the county have at present no public water at all, and not more than one-third of the landward population of 21,000 live in houses with a public supply of water. Even where there is a public supply in a special district, it is often highly unsatisfactory. A recent inspection in one special district showed that supplies were quite inadequate in dry periods of the year and that at best the supply was intermittent. In this special district arrangements for maintenance and supervision of the supply were badly lacking.
This Bill will enable the county council to proceed ultimately with schemes covering the whole area of the county where water is required. Moreover, the Bill as a whole deals with water supply on a larger basis than the purely local one Grants under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, will enable county-wide schemes or regional schemes to be carried out and, with the disappearance of the purely local supply water district system, each county will for the first time appear as a water authority in fact as well as in name. Better supervision and maintenance and more economical running of water supply systems should result.
That part of the Bill dealing with water rates is an essential part of the improvement of water supplies in Scotland. Its provisions to set up a uniform system of water rating are intended to make the job of the administrator easier than it has been up to now, and the mere uniformity of it puts the owners and occupiers of premises being supplied and the public supply of water on an equal basis for the first time wherever the owners or occupiers may live or carry on their businesses. Since the Bill was introduced we have made some changes in it. In


its general outlines the Bill is not materially altered. One has in mind, however, Clause 7, the Amendment to which was discussed for a little time this afternoon, which provides for an adjustment to be made between landlord and tenant to save the immediate shock of an increased rate burden on the occupier. I think that the Amendment we have made is one which, after little discussion, was found to be acceptable to Members in all parts of the House.
Clause 11, which relates to requisitioning by a supplying authority to recover expenses in supplying water in the districts of other authorities, has also been largely modified. The effect of the Amendment is to give greater elasticity and to allow local authorities to come to an agreement to operate, where that would be more equitable, a system of requisitioning slightly different from that envisaged when the Bill was first introduced. Many other Amendments have been made throughout the Bill, either in fulfilment of undertakings which my right hon. Friend gave in Committee or in response to the criticisms of the Bill that were made by persons and parties outside and particularly by the local authorities and the local authority associations.
The object of all these Amendments has been to make this a better Bill than it was when it had its Second Reading. Examination of them should show that my right hon. Friend had been prepared to listen to criticisms and suggestions from any quarter and to make alterations where consideration has shown that alteration was likely to lead to an improvement. We have had friendly and useful discussions on this Measure. It is a small Bill and has been often described as an uncontroversial Bill; but it is one that is of the greatest importance particularly to the rural parts of Scotland and it is one which we hope will be as well received in another place as it has been in this House. If further suggestions are made for the improvement of the Bill, I can give an assurance that my right hon. Friend will be only too glad to consider them.

6.25 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I agree at once that the Bill is now a better Bill than it was at the time when we had it before us for Second Reading. I wonder whether

at any time any Minister has ever been in a happier position than has the right hon. Gentleman throughout all the stages of this Bill, knowing perfectly well that no one would ever dare to take any serious measure against him, and that by reason of the fact that the Exchequer contribution which was fixed four years ago at some £6 million has now been advanced to the sum of £20 million. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman never had any fear at all but that his Bill would eventually pass through all its stages in this House without any serious opposition. But that huge increase draws our attention to the enormous sums involved nowadays in these matters. We should pay the most scrupulous attention to the financial side and make sure, so far as we in this House possibly can, that money voted by Parliament is used economically and to the best possible advantage of the community as a whole.
I wish to make one or two references to changes which have been brought about in the Bill as we now have it before us. The first is concerned with the uniform rating system to which the hon. Gentleman made reference. We must realise now that the cost to any local authority of providing water is borne in the first place by the public water rate varying to the extent of between one-fifth and one-third of the total cost and paid equally by owner and occupier. We debated that matter very fully in Committee. We know perfectly well that it is a departure from the 25 per cent. recommended by the Bryce Walker Committee but, in that it allows for flexibility, I think that it is all to the good, for it does allow within those limits a certain discretion to the local authority, and we approve of that wholeheartedly. I wonder, though, whether the discretion granted is sufficiently wide to meet all the varying circumstances of the many authorities concerned and also whether the 33⅓ per cent.—that is the upper limit—is not too high, and the lower limit of 20 per cent. is not low enough.
For example, is there today any local authority which is actually expending 33⅓ per cent. of the total cost of providing water on public services? If not, then of course one section of the community is subsidising another section. I should have thought that it would have been possible to arrive at the actual cost of supplying water for public purposes and to have


rated accordingly to meet that cost without laying down what appears to be an arbitrary system. After all, we have that in regard to gas and electricity for public lighting. I can see no reason why the same system of paying for what is used should not be applied to water. That, surely, would be fair and it would get rid of any possibility of a concealed subsidy, which in my view is always a bad thing. People should be able easily to appreciate the actual cost to them as individuals of any public service.
We had a difference of opinion as to the propriety of people paying equally for the service or services the benefits of which were enjoyed more fully by some than by others. The outstanding case of that was, of course, that of those who, because they lived in remote areas, could never enjoy a public supply of water and could only benefit to a very limited extent, and that indirectly, from the public services. I cannot help feeling that injustice is done to such persons, and I have not been persuaded by the arguments of either the Minister or hon. Gentlemen opposite that is not so. That is also the position of owners, and that is another reason why the sum raised by the public water rate should not be more than the actual cost of the supply for public purposes.
Then we have the domestic rate, payable by occupiers on the gross annual value. Here, again, the charge might be on the amount of water actually consumed, but I appreciate that the argument against that is that it might induce some people to use less water than was necessary for ordinary personal or domestic cleanliness. It seems to me that such an argument, or the possibility that such an argument could be advanced, is a reflection on our standard of education and one which I hope may very shortly be removed. That the charge should be made in this arbitrary manner, instead of on the basis of the amount used, is certainly an incentive to carelessness in the use of water, and in times of shortage that places a very great burden upon the local authorities. This Bill, however, does recognise the principle that the user should pay, and that is certainly an advance on the existing practice.
Following on these remarks, I do not think the House will be surprised if I say that I still find the provisions of Clause 8 objectionable. Why the county councils should be called upon to subsidise the domestic water rate I do not appreciate at all. Generally speaking, people should pay for what they use of any commodity, and should not expect to be subsidised in this way. I trust that that provision will be very seldom used in practice, because it is just another concealed subsidy. The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman put forward and which we have accepted, while it is an improvement, does not bring home the actual charge to the individual consumer. The third method of meeting the cost is by charging the industrial user for the amount which he actually consumes, and I consider that quite unexceptionable. Apart from these matters the Bill is, by and large, acceptable to us on this side of the House.
I want to pay my tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for having met us so fairly on a large number of points and also for the scrupulous regard which he has shown in dealing with all matters on which he promised further consideration. Knowing him, of course, we did not expect anything less than that. It only remains for me to hope that the Government may press ahead with the necessary work, that the local authority schemes will be very quickly sanctioned, and that the sum now available will be found sufficient to meet all the requirements so as to give to all except the very few to whom it cannot be provided the boon of decent sanitation and the great advantage of a piped water supply. I do not know of any other single Measure which could do more to improve the chances of our people remaining on the land, and of inducing others from the urban areas to move there, to help to repopulate our rural districts and achieve that much desired increase in our agricultural production.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that there have been slight criticisms regarding some of the provisions of the Bill from this side of the House, perhaps I should bid it farewell by saying that I believe the Bill to be, on the whole, a good one, which could have been bettered had my right hon. Friend seen fit to adopt


the very wise Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) with regard to compensation. I have not the slightest doubt that that would have made it not just a good Bill but one of the most noteworthy Measures that have ever emanated from this House. However, we shall take it as it is, give it a welcome and wish it success.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) referred to one or two small points on which he had qualified his praise. In Clause 16, there is one of these points on which I think a word may be merited in order to make clear my own point of view with regard to it. Throughout Clause 16, there is continual reference to the phrase "water rate." The water rate referred to in Clause 16 should be limited specifically to a rate in respect of a "supply of water," because I feel that the wording in this Clause includes the public water rate, and, in so doing, goes very far beyond the intention of the Clause. That is my own point of view on this particular Clause, though I admit there may be some unexplained reason for wording it as it is.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in his anticipation of what the Bill will effect. I subscribe to that entirely. May I indicate by one example the simplification of administration which should follow? When we consider that today local authority staffs have to go round offices and small business premises counting the number of taps used in those places and then charge for the amount of water used on that basis, we realise that, on that simple point, this Bill will save the use of a great amount of labour, because that task will no longer be necessary now that a charge by way of a rate in the £ can be made. While there may be little complications to begin with, once The machinery gets into working order, I believe this Bill will function smoothly and well.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Bill was non-controversial, and, obviously, anything which might result in a better water supply for Scotland should be non-controversial. As, however, various town councils and local authorities in Scotland have had little

opportunity to study what happens under this Bill, I am not so certain that they regard it as non-controversial. The Bill is still in some ways rather obscure, and I think that the reason why certain points have not been raised in Committee is because the time was simply not sufficient to give local authorities a sufficient opportunity for going into the details of this Measure. Further, I doubt very much whether some of the points which they might have raised would have been permissible on Report stage. The Parliamentary Secretary did, however, say that if any further suggestions are brought forward before the Bill goes to another place, they would be very carefully considered, and, in that connection, I hope that any such suggestions put forward will receive due consideration.
There are one or two aspects of the Bill to which I would like to refer, and one concerns the position of local authorities which, in the past, have provided water for premises outside their boundaries. That position is protected by the Bill in Clause 31, and any premises outside a burgh which were supplied with water before 16th May, 1946, will be deemed to be within the limits of supply of that particular town council.
There are certain burghs in the East of Scotland which have, in the past, under their available powers, voluntarily given water to premises well outside their own boundaries, and incurred certain expenses in so doing. What is more, they have always had the right to withdraw the supply of such water if, for any reason, their own supplies were threatened. To be absolutely certain of maintaining these supplies under the present Bill, they may quite well have to incur additional expenditure. I am by no means clear whether these far-sighted and generous burghs are properly protected, or whether they may suffer in the future. I sincerely hope that if these points are to be brought forward between now and the next stage they will be carefully considered.
There is only one other point to which I wish to refer, and which arose in connection with an intervention earlier today. I feel it is rather a pity that one should have to go as far as Clause 24 before it is clear, certainly to the landlord, and even to the local authorities who will have to work the provisions of the Bill, that the Bill does not apply to water supplied for trade purposes. I should


have thought it would have been perfectly simply to make that perfectly clear earlier in the Bill, even in the Preamble, and I hope the point will be looked at. However, if the Bill can go on its way with the hope of some improvement at a later stage, one must give it one's blessing.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Ross: Despite a certain amount of misgiving regarding what happened over Clause 26, like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I welcome the Bill. As the Joint Under-Secretary of State said, it is a small Bill, but a very important one, because anything we hope to do in the agricultural development of Scotland, and anything we hope to do in the Highlands in connection with the introduction of industry will depend, first of all, on our ability to use the £20 million which the Secretary of State for Scotland has somehow or other acquired from the Treasury. I only hope that, having found some way of getting money from the Treasury, he will continue to be as successful in regard to other matters, such as housing.
From the point of view of administration, I think this enabling Bill will be generally welcomed, although one point was brought out with which the Bill does not and cannot deal, but which we should take note of—the fact that there are still people in Scotland today, not in the rural areas, but as the Secretary of State told us, mainly in the cities, who are paying domestic water rates although they have no water supply actually in their houses. The Bill is making no change in that respect; it is just continuing an undesirable feature, not only of Scottish rating, but of Scottish life. I hope my right hon. Friend will seek a solution to that problem by the introduction of another Bill.
Another part of the Bill which created quite a considerable amount of heat was that dealing with the question of the institution of the public water rate. I cannot entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) in this matter. I know that there are extreme cases which can be argued, but, while the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), pacifist that he is, has to pay taxes with

which to provide an Army, an Air Force and a Navy, and whilst the same hon. Member, vegetarian that he is, has to pay for subsidies on meat, I think we can pass over the extreme cases regarding the public water rate.
I would only say, on the Clause about which, shall we say, I got slightly heated, that I feel—having given a bit of guidance to those who are going to arbitrate on these obligations and who are going compulsorily to terminate the contracts—there will be less chance of the local authorities and the people concerned coming to agreement under Clause 26 (1) than there would be by waiting for compulsory acquisition or, failing that, by accepting the guidance given by the Minister to the people concerned when they come to consider the voluntary termination of contracts.
However, the one thing that shines clearly throughout the Bill, and the one thing we Scotsmen cannot ignore, is this sum of £20 million, not merely because it is an increased amount of money, but because it is more in conformity with the hopes we entertain for our native country. I only hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland was a little out in his calculations when he said that it would take 20 years to spend this money, because I sincerely believe that, with proper drive and initiative, we need not wait 20 years in order to make a real start. Unless we get these basic water services, we shall not get our agriculture and industry built up, nor shall we get the increased amenities for the rural populations which this money implies. I hope that every effort will be made to get on with the work straight away, and that it will not take as long as the 20 years anticipated by my right hon. Friend.

6.49 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would just like to say one word before this Bill passes. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), who gave us an interesting dissertation on one or two matters about collecting the sand of the sea by the wicked landlords, realises that his chief, the Secretary of State for Scotland, is one of those wicked landlords, and that he collects sea shells and sand from the islands of the west. Perhaps he did not realise that even Socialists can do these things.

Mr. Rankin: My right hon. Friend does so on behalf of the nation and for its well-being, not for private profit.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: My second point is that it should be borne in mind by all when considering a Bill which deals with water that the trees which have been planted in vast numbers by landlords in the past are contributing, to a tremendous degree, to the water which is going to be available for the purposes of this Bill. The landlords should be given credit for that. It was the hon. Member for Tradeston who said that the Almighty had provided everything, that the water went up and that the rain came down, but——

Mr. Rankin: I deny that.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: —the encouragement for the water to come down, and to come down where it does, is very largely governed by where the trees are.

Mr. Rankin: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me——

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I cannot give way for the moment; I must go on. The trees are the main means, as was said in the "Sunday Times" yesterday, which, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman saw, for the interplay of earth, water and air on which man's very existence depends. The landlords of Scotland have done a great service in planting trees, and have helped to provide the water so much needed in this country. The wholesale cutting down of trees is certainly going to affect the water supply of Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. In giving credit to the landlords for these things, will he also give credit to them for the fact that during the period between the wars they destroyed 50 million young trees?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think this Bill has anything to do with trees.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Perhaps it would be better if, on both sides of the House, we left the subject of trees.
The only other comment I wish to make is to say how much greater value this Bill would have—and I do welcome the Bill—if it had only been part of an overall examination of the potential water supplies of Scotland. Until there

is such an overall examination we shall waste water in every direction; the best use will not be made of it. Hydroelectric power, rural and city supplies will never develop as they should until that overall examination of the potential water supplies in Scotland is undertaken. It was promised years ago, and it has never been done. This Bill comes forward piecemeal after the 1947 Act and the various Hydro-electric Development Measures, none of which are co-related to each other. That is a tragedy, because water is strictly limited. It is very temperamental and it will not stand being played the fool with, as I have said in this House before. I hope the next item on the programme of the Secretary of State, so far as water is concerned, will be to set up a commission of experts to examine the water potentiality of Scotland. It is absolutely necessary, and it must be done before it is too late.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: As I have offered a word of criticism of one Clause in this Bill, I should like now to say a word of welcome and add to the paean of praise which the Bill as a whole is now receiving. I still think the provisions concerning compensation are incomplete and defective. It is a great pity that the Bill does not contain more definite guidance as to how compensation is to be assessed. Compensation is dealt with under Clause 26, but the only guide to be found in the Clause is that compensation shall be assessed at the value of the rights secured. How is that to be done? What is the value of the rights secured? Clause 26 (3) says:
The amount of the compensation to be paid under the last preceding subsection shall be assessed by reference to the value of the rights secured under the obligation as at the date of the making of the order. …
There is no indication as to how that value is to be assessed or arrived at, nor is there any check upon it. At least, there is one check, namely, that the compensation must not be a figure which will impose an undue burden upon the ratepayers. The Clause goes on:
… and in assessing that value regard shall be had to the amount of the rate or charge or of the rate and charge, as the case may be, which may reasonably be expected to become payable as a result of the termination of the obligation.


That is the only check which is placed upon it, and in my submission it is very inadequate.
There should be some more concrete guide in the Clause as to how the compensation is to be assessed. There should be some limit as to the number of years' purchase. The Clause is left quite at large in respect of the assessment of compensation. It may, indeed, defeat itself by imposing an undue burden. Apart from that, the Bill is excellent and is bound to do good if it does not impose too great a burden upon the ratepayers. I welcome the Bill.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I wish to make a few observations on the final stage of this Bill before it leaves us for another place. In passing, I should like to enter a mild protest against the Third Reading of a Measure like this being taken on a Monday, because the Secretary of State knows perfectly well that it is very difficult for Scottish Members, especially those from rural Scotland, to attend on Mondays. I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, with far longer experience of this House than mine—some 30 years, I believe—that there has always been an unwritten tradition, that unless it is unavoidable, Scottish business should not be taken on a Monday. We put questions to the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday afternoons. This is not the first time in this Parliament that Scottish legislation has been presented on a Monday, and I do urge the right hon. Gentleman not to repeat this sort of thing again unless it is absolutely unavoidable.
Having said that, I wish, like nearly everyone else—a few caveats have been entered on the other side—to say how much I welcome this Bill in general principle. I was very interested in the Under-Secretary's remarks when moving the Third Reading, and I agree with almost every word. There is no-doubt that water is a commodity—if that is the right word to use about a fluid—which is being increasingly used. The consumption of water per capita in Scotland has always been high. It is increasing and it is bound to go on increasing if Scotland is to be developed in the way that it should.
The Under-Secretary spoke about the potentiality in the future, and referred

to hydro-electric schemes and agriculture. It is with agriculture that I am more or less wholly occupied. I thought the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was a little ungenerous when he alluded to the increase of £13 million. I agree with the Under-Secretary that that increase should do very great things indeed for Scottish agriculture. The Under-Secretary spoke about conditions in Berwickshire where 50 per cent. of the inhabitants live almost entirely, I think he said, without any public water supply. Let me tell him that there are other counties in Scotland where conditions are quite as bad and in some cases worse than they are in Berwickshire. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to one of the two counties which I have the honour to represent in this House—Wigtonshire. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has been there during his term of office; if not, I urge him to go there at the earliest possible moment, and he will find much room for improvement all round. That is a county where dairy farming plays a very important part.
It is the policy of this Government, as it was the policy of the previous Government, and I hope it will be of any Government in the future, whatever its political complexion, to increase dairy production. If we cannot have the proper water facilities for purposes of cleanliness dairy production will not continue in the satisfactory way which we want to see from the point of view of public health. I hope that point will be borne very carefully in mind. There is another point which will appeal to the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) with her great knowledge of educational matters. The Under-Secretary will not deny that in Scotland there are many schools which are without proper water supplies and sanitation. I hope he will keep that point carefully in mind.
I wish to say a few words about two of the Clauses which have been amended. I am glad that Clause 11, which deals with the expenses of a local authority supplying water in the district of another authority, has been amended. All the Amendments which have been made to this Bill are important, but I am particularly glad of the Amendment made to that Clause. It will go a long way to smooth out the position, because no one will deny that in this question of one


local authority supplying water in the domain of another, it is probably the smaller local authority which will be the supplying authority. Therefore, we must be very vigilant to see that the interests of such authorities are in no way jeopardised. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will agree with me there, because I know he has always been one to look after the interests of minorities, and he would not wish to see the supply of a local authority which may be a small one jeopardised in any way by the demand that is made upon it by a larger authority which is drawing water from it. It might even be the City of Edinburgh or Glasgow. I think the Amendment goes a long way to meet my fears on that point.
The only other Clause to which I want to refer Clause 26, which deals with the termination of the right to a supply of water on special terms and which, of course, raises the vexed question of compensation. I am glad it leaves us this evening without what I consider would have been a very wrong Amendment. Some hon. Members on the other side come to this House whenever compensation matters are raised with their minds very severely prejudiced, if not already made up. [Laughter.] That laugh shows how right I am in saying that. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Gilzean) lashed himself almost into a fury saying that whenever the question of taking water from either the hills or the waste moorlands is concerned, people always look to see how much money they can get. I must dissent from that point of view. I am entitled to my opinion just as he is entitled to his opinion, and I feel that my opinion is probably nearer the truth.
I will make a present to the hon. Gentleman; in the past there have been landlords who have not been too willing to give water facilities. We all know that. But not from the point of view of wishing to make money—simply because they thought, and very often thought erroneously, that the water undertaking would make a great mess of the property concerned. That is the sole reason. In this quickly-moving age we have left that state of society behind. I do not think we shall find it today and certainly we shall not find——

Mr. Gilzean: I recall the 35-mile long aqueduct between Table Reservoir and

Edinburgh, because of which I am informed, the city authority has to pay, among other things, a considerable share of the rates of the County of Peebles—about one-third, I believe. The same thing occurs, though to a lesser degree, in Midlothian.

Mr. McKie: It would be out of Order on Clause 26, which deals with compensation, to answer the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh in the way I should like to answer him. He was a member of the City Council of Edinburgh at one time and he knows the sins of omission of that body with regard to making provision for the citizens of Edinburgh. I said that only because, in a sense, I was goaded by the hon. Member and I will not pursue the matter further. I believe Clause 26 will operate quite fairly and, despite what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) may say in his speech or indicate by shaking his head, I am of the opinion that it will work fairly to both sides. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kilmarnock wishes to see it working fairly only so far as one side is concerned. I prefer to take a larger and more generous view than he does.
I welcome this Bill in its broad outlines. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew made the point that perhaps it is too soon to say how local authorities will receive it. I do not mean to suggest that they will not be grateful, as we all are, for the £13 million, but it may be that those who are responsible, the civil servants employed by the various local authorities, will have many headaches before they unravel the many complicated issues in this Bill. We have all received complaints from local authorities about the way legislation is rushed through. I am not complaining in general that this Bill was been unduly rushed, although perhaps there could have been more time between Second Reading and Committee, but there is no doubt, as has been truly said, that local authorities are somewhat resentful of the way legislation is continually being hurled at them. Certainly before they unravel all the many points in this Bill, they will have many headaches.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) referred to me as "the hon. Member for West Renfrew." I think that should be corrected.

Mr. McKie: I am sorry for the error. It arose from my having spoken in the hon. Member's constituency—or rather in the constituency where he is now candidate. I expressed the hope that at the next election he would become the Member for that constituency. I am well aware that he sits for the constituency of Montrose Burghs. My mistake does not in any way undo the truth of his remark, with which I cordially agree, about the great burden which the staffs of local authorities have to bear, a burden which is increasing as the years go by and as legislation is thrust upon them. I do not wish to end on a note of criticism however, and may I therefore assure the right hon. Gentleman that I welcome this Bill?

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: We have now reached what I hope will be the final stage of this Bill in this House and we are sending it with our best wishes to another place. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) raised a point about the fact that this Bill has been taken on a Monday. I regret that that should be so, but I must make it clear that there is such an amount of Scottish business for Parliament during this Session that it is impossible to delay Bills merely in order to find some other day of the week than Monday. I hope hon. Members will make it their business to be here on a Monday—as indeed the hon. Member for Galloway is here—even though it may be somewhat inconvenient.
Mention has been made of the danger of the waste of water. I believe it is not generally realised that this is a most important factor which is inherent in this Bill. The mere fact that we are to spend this amount of money on producing water should bring to the notice of people that it is an extremely costly business to produce water which should not, therefore, be wasted. I regret that in the past engineers have not designed our houses so that the hot water was nearer to the place of use. Every time one uses hot water there is a considerable waste of cold water. Water is becoming much too valuable to be expended needlessly and I hope that fact will be taken into account by the designers of houses because, as has been pointed out, every house built leads to a greatly increased consumption of water.
It is not generally realised south of the Border how costly it is to provide water in Scotland. It is a first-class engineering project of great magnitude. It is, indeed, equal to hydro-electric schemes and things of that kind. This is not because we have a scarcity of water, but that the water is there today and gone tomorow unless it is captured as it falls. The provision of water in Scotland is therefore a totally different proposition from the provision of water in most parts of England.
The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) raised a question about the county levy but I think he did not quite foresee the benefit this would bring to the countryside. If we were to say that people in isolated villages must bear the whole cost of taking a domestic water supply to them, that would be equivalent to saying that they would never have a domestic water supply. In some cases it will be necessary for the county to carry some of the burden if it is not to be insupportable.
The hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) asked about the survey of Scotland's water supplies. Fortunately, Scotland has been well ahead in surveying water supplies, and because of that survey we are well enough ahead in Scotland to proceed with the schemes that are adumbrated in this Bill. His point is still a valid one, that there is a necessity for a complete survey of the inland water resources of this country. There was a committee, the Inland Water Survey Committee, which was in being up to the war. It has not yet been reconstituted, but the Government will take into consideration the question of reconstituting it with a view to a complete survey as early as possible.
Some of my hon. Friends felt very strongly on the question of compensation. The matter in this Bill is not a serious one in magnitude, and it would not justify departing from the principle. I was rather sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) misunderstood the question of finances to such an extent that he suggested that because of compensation people who were paying for a service would be paying additional money for compensation. I know of no service which has been nationalised in which the persons paying


for the service will pay a penny extra on account of compensation. The compensation is a capital charge, and is a transfer of capital from individuals to the State, and does not involve any charge—any extra charge—upon the people who are purchasing the service.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how his argument applies to the nationalisation of the buses of S.M.T.? Will not the travelling public have to pay for compensation in high bus fares?

Mr. Woodburn: That is not quite in the Bill, but the point is this. If we transfer the capital value of a waterworks, or of a bus, we are simply transferring the share certificates from the names of the former shareholders to the name of the State. There is no extra cost for meeting charges on the capital by a mere transfer of share certificates from one to another. Therefore, my reply to the hon. Gentleman is that nobody need pay any extra money in contribution towards meeting a capital charge, if that is carried through, for due compensation. If there were abnormal compensation the case might be otherwise, but the State will be extremely careful about that; and, judging from what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the various occasions when we have had Measures of this kind before the House, they are not under the impression that extra compensation is being paid for the transfer of the certificates.
The Bill brings great benefit to Scotland. We are thinking in terms today of £20 million granted by the State. As for the suggestion that people may think they may be wasteful because there are £20 million to spend, I am sorry to say that the problem of harnessing Scotland's water supplies is so great that £20 million will by no means solve it. The guarantee against wastage is secured, inasmuch as the total amount to be spent on developing water services will be anything from £60 million to £65 million. Therefore, the local authorities and others who are making their contributions to the services will have adequate incentive to ensure that those services are in no way wasteful.
Those who have suggested that we ought to cut down the estimate I made of from 15 to 20 years, have not really

measured the practical realities of the situation. Willingly would I cut down the estimate. That would be a simple matter. However, the physical task of spending £65 million on engineering works in Scotland is something that will take years to accomplish, no matter who does it. The hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald), with his great skill in these matters could, no doubt, have given us an estimate of what it means in man hours and in engineering capacity to spend £65 million on water works in Scotland. He will agree that if we spend anything like that in 15 or 20 years there will be little unemployment in the civil engineering trade in Scotland during that period.
The Bill benefits not only the Highlands and Islands but also the Lowlands. In the Highlands and Islands it will bring great benefits. It is already bringing great benefits, because, fortunately, by previous grant we were able to give the "Go ahead" signal to many of the local authorities in Scotland, and already many of these water works are under way, and every month and year the number of men occupied on these works is steadily increasing. As other works come to an end, such as the hydroelectric work, the men employed on them can well be transferred to similar work on the water schemes.
In the Lowlands this Bill is also of tremendous importance. We are now reaching the stage in housing when in some areas it will be difficult to proceed with more housing until we have water supplies. That is the case in my own constituency. We are building so many houses, in spite of the pessimism of hon. Members in all parts of the House, that we are reaching the point of exhaustion of existing water supplies, and as the law says we must have water supplies this problem may have to be solved by speeding up the provision of water even at the expense of some other projects we should all love to have. Mention has been made of the provision of water for schools. It is absolutely necessary. All these questions involve the allocating of the existing labour and material that we have, to the provision for the best services we can provide for Scotland.
I concluded by thanking hon. Members for the co-operation they have given in the furtherance of this Bill and


in helping to bring it to this present stage. Like them, as it is about to go to another place, I hope it will be welcomed there, and that we may have it back very soon with the endorsement of another place, and that it may soon become an Act of Parliament. Many local authorities are straining at the leash waiting for the authority of Parliament to go ahead with their projects. Some have had that authority, and some are still holding back waiting for this Bill. When this Bill becomes an Act, Scotland will make another big step in her comprehensive planning; for this Bill is not designed in isolation, but is part of a great scheme for developing the Highlands and Islands and Lowlands, for their well being. I am sure the House is doing a good job for Scotland and its people by passing this Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]

Orders of the Day — THE PEAK DISTRICT (QUARRYING)

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Molson: In the King's Speech with which this Session was begun the Government promised a Measure to set up national parks. That Measure will be welcomed far outside the ranks of the Socialist Party. One, of the first three parks that the Hob-house Committee recommended was The Peak. They gave a warning that the beauty and charm of The Peak was in great danger of being spoiled by the quarrying developments that were taking place there. If and when national parks legislation is on the Statute Book, The Peak will obtain a considerable measure of protection. One of the definitions is that it shall be a place where
the characteristic landscape beauty is strictly preserved and where established farming use is effectively maintained." …
It is not surprising that when it became apparent that The Peak was to be included in the park legislation, the mineral interests concerned should seek, before that legislation was put on the Statute Book, to obtain permission from

the Minister of Town and Country Planning for the largest and most extensive mineral development possible. That, indeed, has happened. On 29th August, 1947, the "Manchester Guardian" gave a list of the developments that had been applied for: Bradwell, Pindale, Eldon Hill, Gautries Hill, Water Swallows, Tunstead, Ashwood Dale, Grinlow, Topley Pike, Calton Hill, Hemmerton Hill, Hillhead, Hindlow, Brierlow and Dowlow, Hartington Station, Hartshead, Heathcote and Friden, Bakewell Chert, Hassop Station, Middleton Dale.
It may be supposed that the Minister of Town and Country Planning should have foreseen that applications for development of this kind would have taken place. He foresaw it, but, I regret to say, he neglected to take appropriate action. Why do I say that he foresaw the danger? On 26th November, 1946, he sent a representative of his Ministry to Buxton—two-and-a-quarter years ago—and a meeting was convened by his Ministry. I am quoting the terms of reference:
To discuss the future of the lime and limestone industry operating in the vicinity of Buxton and The High Peak.
Towards the end of that meeting, Mr. Gillie, an official of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, who was in the chair, proposed—and I am quoting again—that
Each quarrying undertaking and also each landowner who wished to do so should forward to the Minister in confidence a statement showing the land suggested for quarrying in both short and long-term"—
and here I omit many particulars and go on to complete the quotation, without, I think, altering the sense, that the question was one
to be dealt with by means of individual fairly long-term proposals for quarrying up to possibly 100 years, or for individual new quarries.
That I regard as being a very right and proper way of planning development of a part of the country which is of tremendous aesthetic and amenity value to great industrial populations on the East and West and all round that part, and where, at the same time, there are valuable minerals of which this country stands in need both for its industrial and its agricultural development.
My main indictment this afternoon of the Minister is that nothing effective has


been done in the last two-and-a-quarter years to give effect to the policy which was then laid down on his behalf by Mr. Gillie. It is the Minister's own testimony which condemns him. It was in connection with this matter that I am raising tonight that on the 21st January, 1949, he wrote to me:
I hope to be able to continue the comprehensive examination of the mineral problem in The Peak at an early date.
If the ordinary rules of construction of the English language apply in the case of departmental letters, that means to say that there has been an interruption in this "comprehensive examination" which was supposed to have been taken two and a quarter years ago. It is the need for a general, long-term, strategical plan of development of that kind which I wish specially to emphasise, and I consider that the right hon. Gentleman is, at the present time, in a very special position of responsibility to see that when the national parks legislation is upon the Statute Book no irreparable harm shall not already be found to have been done to areas to be included in the national parks.
Unfortunately, there have been recently two decisions given by the right hon. Gentleman which seem to show that, despite the office which he occupies, he is not a true defender of the amenities of what are intended to be the national parks. He seems to have shown so strong a bias in favour of industrial development that one would almost suppose that he was unable to withstand the influence and pressure of his right hon. colleagues who are responsible for the Board of Trade or for the Ministry of Transport.
The first example to which I want to refer is the permission which he granted after a public inquiry for a great extension of the existing cement works in the Hope Valley. I appreciate fully what can be said in favour of what is there being done. I know that Earle's Cement Works have not been indifferent to considerations of amenity. Quite a long time ago they engaged Mr. G. A. Jellicoe, one of the most distinguished of our landscape artists, to see what could be done to make reparation and to cover up the scars which have been inflicted upon the Hope Valley, and the harm that has already been done to the amenities by their industrial development. I was very

glad to open an exhibition in the village of Hope showing in a small plan the scheme which had been prepared by Mr. Jellicoe and which Earle's Cement Works had undertaken to put into effect.
I am only too well aware of the harmful effects upon the Hope Valley of the existing cement works and the two chimneys which at present belch their noxious fumes and dust into the valley itself. This has the most harmful effect upon the pasturage of the neighbouring farms. It is recognised that the effect of the limestone dust upon the grass is extremely bad for the animals which are pastured there. I also understand that there is a theory, not at present, I think, proved, that this dust is also inclined to cause bone disease among the animals. That, I heard only today, has been found to be occurring in Lancashire, and it may well be the same in Derbyshire.
I can, therefore, see that if once it is decided that the life of these cement works in the Hope Valley is to be lengthened for a further century and the area of development is to be greatly extended, it is arguable that in place of two hideous chimneys belching into the Hope Valley, it may be better to have one hideous chimney, 400 feet high, belching its noxious fumes and limestone dust up on to the moors above. Even so, there can surely be no justification for the right hon. Gentleman not having made a condition of this further extension the use of something in the nature of the Lodge-Cottrill precipitator, which has the effect of depositing the dust from the cement-making factory and making it available for industrial and agricultural purposes instead of its being belched into the air and becoming a nuisance to all those who live anywhere in the district.
Certainly there is widespread distress at the decision the right hon. Gentleman has come to upon this matter. I have had a number of letters in recent weeks; and only this afternoon, just before I came in here, there was a telegram from someone in Sheffield, whom I do not know, telling me of the distress the right hon. Gentleman's decision has caused. I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. F. Marshall) in his place; I am confident that he will have something more to say upon this subject: he has been chairman of the Town Planning Committee of the City of Shef-


field; he has made himself prominent in the task of trying to preserve the amenities of The High Peak before he became Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. I hope that from the benches which support the right hon. Gentleman, I also shall have some support for the protest that I am making this evening.
Worse than what has happened in the case of the cement works—because, as I think, more unreasonably decided by the right hon. Gentleman—is what has happened in the case of that part of Wyedale called Ashwood Dale, just outside Buxton. Until the Minister of Town and Country Planning took the right to determine these applications into his own hands, the Buxton Corporation was the planning authority. The most beautiful approach to Buxton is from Bakewell, up a narrow gorge with rugged limestone cliffs on the easterly side. Some three or four years ago the Imperial Chemical Industries wished to work the limestone on the east side. The Buxton Corporation was only willing to grant permission for this to be done provided that a screen of the living rock should be left, in order to preserve the scenery of the gorge.
Parliament, in its wisdom, was dissatisfied with the care that some local authorities exercised in preserving the amenities of their countryside and they set up a Ministry of Town and Country Planning. I can only think that Parliament was, at any rate on some occasions, much mistaken. When an application by Derbyshire Stone Limited was made to the right hon. Gentleman, the Buxton Corporation was quite agreeable to the development taking place provided the same condition was applied to Derbyshire Stone Limited as had been applied to Imperial Chemical Industries. Negotiations took place, and then it was proposed that there should be a formal hearing.
There are occasions when I am disposed to sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman; it seems to me that he is not always entirely well served by those in his Department. The Buxton Corporation protested that there was no public inquiry in this case, and, writing to me on 21st January, 1949, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Buxton was told on 18th December, 1947, that there was going to be a hearing, but the

hearing itself was not held until 19th February, 1948. If the Council had felt strongly that a hearing was not adequate and had wished to press their case for a public inquiry, they had plenty of time at that stage in which to do so. Their protest was not, in fact, made until 20th September, 1948, after the decision on the case had been taken and issued.
It was on 22nd July, 1947—and I am now quoting extracts from the transcript of a shorthand note taken of an informal meeting—that the Town Clerk of Buxton put to Mr. Hughes, representing the right hon. Gentleman, the need for a public inquiry, and said:
Whether it is to be a formal inquiry or public hearing can be left until after this afternoon.
Mr. Hughes said:
I take it the object of Buxton seeking a public inquiry is to bring other information?
The Town Clerk replied:
Yes, with such bodies as the C.P.R.E., the National Parks Committee, and possibly private people.
So far from the statement in the Minister's letter being correct, a resolution calling for a public inquiry was passed on 30th July, 1947. A letter requesting a public inquiry was written by the town clerk to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning on 15th August, 1947; the demand was repeated on 18th December, 1947; it was repeated again on 6th February, 1948; and it was repeated yet again on 12th March, 1948.
In spite of all that, in spite of the opposition of the local authority, which was supported in this matter by the Derbyshire County Council, the Minister has given permission for this development to take place in Ash-wood Dale, in order that a comparatively small amount of what is called Chee Tor stone should be quarried inexpensively by Derbyshire Stone, Limited; the right hon. Gentleman has given permission for 100 yards of the cliff alongside this important approach to Buxton to be swept away. This is a second example of the ill-effects of dealing with these applications for mineral development piecemeal and from hand to mouth, dealing with each one as it arises. One wonders what hope there is for a proper preservation of the country-side when even the Minister of Town and Country Planning himself apparently shows less concern in this matter than was shown by the local authority itself before his Ministry was set up.
I charge the Minister with grave dereliction of duty. Instead of holding The Peak in trust against the day when it becomes a national park, he has, on his own admission, which I have quoted from his letter, neglected the comprehensive examination of mineral development which he began two and a quarter years ago. He has no general plan upon which to work when dealing with individual applications which are already alarmingly numerous, and great harm has already been done to the amenities of the Hope Valley by the permission he gave in that case. Even more inexcusable is it that against the opposition of the local authorities and without holding a public inquiry, he has granted similar permission for a great destruction to be done in Ashwood Vale.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Fred Marshall: This is the first occasion since I ceased to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning that I have ventured to speak in this House on planning matters, but I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend, knowing my keen interest in The Peak district and the efforts I have been privileged to put forward on its behalf for many years to preserve its beauties, would expect me on this occasion to say a few words. I have always regarded The Peak area as likely to become the cockpit of the national parks' agitation. It is an area almost surrounded by a Midland industrial population, and it is estimated that no less than 50 per cent. of the population of this country reside within 60 miles of Buxton. Obviously, from that point of view The Peak as a national park will minister to a greater number of people than any other of our proposed national parks.
I have always maintained that it is a most important area in the country in that it will minister to the greatest number of people. To the great industrial areas of the Midlands it is easy of access by train, bus and car, and no doubt many thousands of people every week enjoy its beauty. This has been recognised by the Dower and Hobhouse Reports and by numerous writers in books and articles. The Hope Valley in which the cement works are situated, is the chief artery through The Peak district. Beautiful in itself with its varied hill and river scenery,

it leads up to some of the most impressive scenery in The Peak, including Mam Tor and the Winnats Pass, Cave Dale, the famous Ridge Walk, Perveril of the Peak Castle, ancient earth works and intensely interesting caves. From the valley access is gained to several typical and delightful Peak villages. Starting from Hathersage in its beautiful setting, we pass Bamford on the right, Bradwell and the Roman fort of Brough well back on the left, through the unspoiled village of Hope and on to Edale or Castleton, two villages nestling at the roots of the hills, with the great mass of Kinder looming in the background.
This, I hope, will give the House some idea of the importance of the Hope Valley to the proposed national park of The Peak. I should also have said that the road through the valley also gives access to the cement works. These are situated on the south side of the valley, at the foot of what has been a very pleasant range of hills. The works can be seen from a considerable distance. Certainly, they can be seen from the hill-tops visible from the valley. In the distance the works are an ugly smudge on the landscape, usually emitting, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has said, smoke and dust. But as one passes them on the road these works literally hit one in the eye. It would be difficult to imagine a more incongruous and ugly picture placed in such charming surroundings. To me they have always appeared to be a model of what should be avoided in country planning. They have already gone far to destroy the beauty of this landscape, and the addition now sanctioned will extend and perpetuate the injury for another 100 years.
A 400-foot chimney, the top of which will be 1,000 feet above sea level, will be half as high as Kinder Scout, the highest peak of the area, which is 2,080 feet, and will shriek out to one from all points of the compass. This will be a fitting centre-piece of the national park of The Peak and, if I may say so, it will be a wonderful monument to a Labour Ministry of Town and Country Planning. As one climbs the shivering mountain and takes a backward glance on the lovely and romantic picture of Peveril Castle perched high on its craggy eminence, this montrosity will be


peering at one over the veritable glories of The Peak.
This extension does not end there. One has only to read the evidence at the inquiry to find out that the resources of limestone already in possession of the firm will last about another 117 years, while the clay resources, a very necessary ingredient in the manufacture of cement, will only last about 40 years. It is estimated that in order to bring the clay resources up to the amount of limestone already in possession of the firm another 15 to 20 farms will have to be acquired by the firm. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has seen the areas from which the clay has been extracted. If he has not he should certainly do so. The only description I can apply to it is—it is a spew of slimy desolation, and that is not saying anything too strong about it. These decision, as the hon. Member for The High Peak said, are hand-to-mouth decisions.
Neither the Town and Country Planning Ministry, nor the Ministry of Supply, nor the Ministry of Transport has as yet a body of information showing alternative sites from which these very necessary minerals may be won. As a consequence, I can only come to the conclusion that they take the line of least resistance. They concede the demand. This is not planning. It is mere expediency, and in the process much of our beautiful scenery "goes west."
Those who love The Peak have taken what steps they can to prevent this happening. In 1942, I had the privilege of leading a deputation to the then Ministry of Works and Planning, with the object of placing before the Ministry all the activities of this firm and the threat to The Peak represented by their activities. We were received by the then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks). At that meeting was also Mr. George Pepler, the Chief Technical Officer to the Ministry. At the interview we strongly urged that restoration measures should be adopted and that no further extension of these works should be authorised. It was war-time and the need for cement was very urgent. We felt that we had received a very sympathetic and understanding hearing.
In his reply to us, the Minister did not commit himself which, in the war-time

circumstances, he could not be expected to do. It was significant that a short time after the interview the local branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England were invited by Messrs. Earl to discuss restoration plans. At that meeting the Ministry were represented. A short time after that, the Jellicoe plan was brought out and adopted. It is a plan to restore the contour of the hills out of which the limestone has been extracted, and to treat the excavations from which the clay has been extracted by the planting of trees upon a fairly extensive scale. It is recognised by all that the plan will take 50 years to mature. It was accepted on that occasion by representatives both of amenity and industry, and seemed to us to mark the end of a very difficult issue.
To adopt such a plan was surely a recognition by the firm and by the Government that considerable damage had already been done to the valley and that an obligation was upon them to repair it as far as possible. I am sure that this extension to the firm was not visualised at that time. A further point that strengthens my contention is that at that time the firm were looking elsewhere for development. In November, 1944, they received authorisation to construct new works at Caldon Low, which is just inside the Staffordshire border. It is not very far away from Dovedale. Some questions of amenity arose but these were settled by the then Minister of Town and Country Planning. I cannot understand why the firm have not gone on with that alternative. It is the alternative to the vast extensions in the Hope Valley.
We are told that Caldon Low has not been developed because of lack of water. Everyone knows that water is an extremely important element in the manufacture of cement. Are we to understand that a firm of this calibre has gone into this scheme without assuring themselves that a plentiful supply of water was available. That explanation seems incredible. Our impression was that Caldon Low was an alternative to the Hope Valley. It is only now that we learn that both are necessary. I cannot help the suspicion arising in my mind that these extensions are now put forward because Caldon Low has not been developed. Four years is a long time for a project of that sort to hang about without any development taking place


I therefore ask the Minister to make searching inquiries into this matter.
Finally, this question raises the matter of amenity and industry in a very dramatic way. The Minister has made his decision to surrender this vital section to desolating and perpetual disfigurement and, in the process, has brought bitter disappointment to all those who love The Peak. The Minister may have been pressed very hard on this matter by other Ministries. If he has, I am sorry that he did not dig his heels in and tell the other Ministries to go to the Cabinet. If, under the stress of postwar temporary shortages, the only thing he can do is to ravage our beauty spots it will indeed be a policy of despair. Under it, no landscape would be immune, if only an urgent economic argument can be advanced for its development. We have done all that we can to fight against these extensions. We think that the health, welfare and recreation of a vast population is distinctly in the national interest and is far more valuable to the nation's economy than an extended cement works.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I wish to support very earnestly the protests which have been made from each side of the House. Both my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) and the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. F. Marshall), spoke with authority, my hon. Friend as the Member for the Division which includes Hope Valley, and the hon. Member opposite as one of the Members for Sheffield, the people of which are to be so gravely injured by this decision. I do not think that the words which my hon. Friend used "betrayal of trust" or the hon. Member's word "surrender" are a bit too strong to describe what has happened.
I want to refer to the letter which was sent by the Ministry on 21st December last to British Portland Cement Manufacturers, Limited. One sentence in the letter was:
The Minister is advised that there is only a limited number of sites in the country satisfying economic considerations and at the same time providing in workable quantities the raw materials and services necessary for the production of cement.
It is very strange that in writing to manufacturers of cement the Minister of

Town and Country Planning should have stressed the need for cement. Why should he preach to the converted? I should have expected the Minister to say—this would have been equally true, "There is only a limited number of places within reach of the teeming population of Sheffield and a number of other towns nearby where the people can find fresh air, recreation and beautiful scenery." A great part of that is now, alas, to go. The letter also said:
The further development of the area should be carried out in such a way as to reduce to a minimum the ultimate damage to the appearance of the valley through quarrying operations in the future.
The words "reduce to a minimum" mean merely "reduce to a minimum consistent with a vast production of cement, a 400-feet chimney and all the rest of it." The "minimum damage" will be very great indeed and, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the national park will be ruined. It is quite clear that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning had his tongue in his cheek the other day when he referred to "adverse effects on the amenities, if any."
The hon. Members who have spoken have referred to Mr. Jellicoe's scheme for repairing the damage done to the valley. His main proposals are to provide for the treatment of the limestone quarry in order to give the illusion that the form of the hill is undisturbed; the treatment of the clay excavations by a series of informal lakes and planted banks, or alternatively the planting of trees to match those already in the valley; and a tree-planting scheme for the whole area. Mr. Jellicoe is, of course, a distinguished landscape artist, but he is employed by the cement company, and I should like an assurance that the Ministry will consult some responsible body—I can think of nobody better than the local branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, which has done such splendid work for the people of Sheffield—as to the method and details of carrying out the Jellicoe plan and as to any modifications of that plan which either the cement company or the Minister wish to propose, or the Council for the Preservation of Rural England to suggest. In a last effort to save something of the


wreck of the Hope Valley, I ask the Minister to give that assurance.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Champion: I want to add a few words to the protest which has been made. I congratulate the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) on having raised this extremely important matter and I congratulate the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. F. Marshall) upon his poetical contribution to the protest which has been made in connection with this extension to the cement works in the Hope Valley.
We should expect the Minister of Town and Country Planning to be the last to give his permission to a project of this sort. After all, he has spent practically the whole of his life telling us of the mistakes which have been made in the past and the desolation which has been caused by introducing industry into the lovely parts of our countryside. He ought to be using his office to ensure that areas such as The High Peak area of Derbyshire are not subjected to any further industrialisation. I am sorry to hear that he has given his consent to this addition, and I hope that the Debate will cause him to reconsider the matter. He should have consulted other Ministers—I suppose he has done so—and he should certainly have consulted the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who was recently photographed rambling over some of this part of the country and who, as President of the Ramblers' Association, ought to be here to add his protest to ours.
The trouble about these acts of industrialisation which from time to time spread to our valleys and hills is that once permission is given, there is no going back. It seems as if extension follows extension in a sort of logical procession of concessions by the Minister to industrialisation. With these few words, I add my protest, and I hope that even at this late hour the Minister will give us some indication that he is prepared to reconsider his decision.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Burden: I want to pay tribute to the wonderful work done on behalf of Sheffield folk by the local branch of the Council for the

Preservation of Rural England and to the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. F. Marshall). My hon. Friend has made town and country planning his life study and I am sure that he speaks with great knowledge and deep appreciation of all that is involved in this project. Last weekend I took the opportunity of going to the site and I tried to gather from a plan which was shown to me, what these developments involve. The local manager of the works, who has been there only a short time, showed a keen interest in the problem from the point of view of the amenities of The Peak district and seemed extremely anxious to do everything within his power to mitigate any ill-effects which might arise from the scheme. It is only fair to say that in connection with this development.
I want to ask the Minister first, are these extensions and developments within the area of the existing cement works in the Hope Valley, and do they really involve some work which will tend to decrease the undoubted nuisance of cement and other material not only over the Hope Valley but also in the surrounding districts? Is it true that urgent steps are being taken in regard to the precipitation tanks which will also mitigate the nuisance arising from the cement works?
I can understand and deeply sympathise with what the hon. Member for Brightside has said in regard to the 400-foot chimney which I believe is to replace two chimneys of 150 feet each. Will that 400-foot chimney be above the skyline? I have seen one plan which shows it not above the skyline, but I have also seen an imaginary photograph which shows it standing up right above the surrounding district. I was informed, rightly or wrongly, that the local officers of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning went carefully into this matter on the spot. I cannot believe that, if this monstrosity is actually proposed to be right above the the skyline, anybody in their senses could have approved such a thing in The Peak district and in what will be a national park.

Mr. Keeling: May I answer the hon. Member's question? I have in my hand a photograph of the Hope Valley, showing the chimney. As he will see, at any rate from this position, it is far above the skyline.

Mr. Burden: That is an effort of somebody's imagination because the chimney does not exist at present.

Mr. Keeling: No, it is superimposed.

Mr. Burden: Well, obviously it is not a photograph of the chimney.

Mr. Keeling: No, I should have said it was a photograph of the valley with the proposed 400-foot chimney superimposed on it.

Mr. Burden: As a matter of fact I have already seen the plan which would be produced to the Ministry, without anything superimposed on it, showing that this chimney will not be above the skyline and will not be like the monstrosity in the hands of the hon. Member. I do not know which is correct and I am asking for information.

Mr. Molson: It depends on how close one is to the chimney. The skyline is not fixed it varies as one approaches the object.

Mr. Burden: A plan was produced to me which would be submitted to the local Ministry officials. Is that plan correct or is this imaginative photograph correct? I am only asking for information.
May I reinforce the plea that even now inquiries should be made on the spot in regard to this chimney and other extensions. For what it is worth, I am told that the chimney is to be erected in order to throw the smoke farther away from Hope village, but obviously what goes up must come down, and it will be spread over a wider area. Be that as it may, if there are no advantages in regard to the 400-foot chimney, I suggest that even at this late hour there might be further inquiries made on the spot to see what can be done to allay genuine apprehensions.
Finally, I would urge that in these days of urban development every effort should be made to retain what natural beauty spots still exist in this country. Among those beauty spots there is nothing to equal what can be found in the Derbyshire Peak district. That is all important. If it means that some industry has to go, well let it go. After all, beauty and the joy of life are more than a few extra tons of cement. Therefore, I urge the Minister, if he can do anything to help

in this business, to do so. At the same time, it was only fair that, having seen what purported to be a plan of the spot. I should say to the House what was represented to me to be the position.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: I would utter a word of complaint in that the hon. Member who opened this Debate limited his protests to the area of Sheffield, as did also my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. F. Marshall). They seemed to imagine that the population surrounding Sheffield were the only people who would be intimately affected by this proposition, but I want to couple with their protests those of the citizens of Nottingham, Derby and Leicester. I have been connected for many years with the rambling and cycling clubs of Nottingham and Derby, whose populations are at a greater distance from the coast than are those in any other part of the country. That part of The Peak district is our holiday resort and we view this proposition with the greatest concern, having suffered from the Ambergate Cement Works. A lot could be prevented by up-to-date methods and adjustments of the smoke and dust nuisances, but these steps are not always taken, and to sacrifice the beauties of Hope in the same way as Ambergate Valley has been sacrificed, seems to our people to be a sorry thing to face in the near future. I am sure that I speak for the majority of our people in Nottingham, Derby and Leicester in coupling their protests with those of the people from Sheffield.

8.20 p.m.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): It is very gratifying to find that there are six honourable and respected Members of this House who are prepared to give some of their leisure, and to turn aside for a short time from the more mundane matters with which we are concerned, to discuss the question of beauty and amenity. While I welcome this Debate, I regret that I cannot welcome the intemperate tone of some of the speeches. Two matters, and only two—Hope Valley and Ashwood Dale—have been discussed as constituting a grave dereliction of duty and a betrayal of trust and as having caused widespread distress, and permanent disfigurement of the countryside. That is so terrible an


exaggeration that hon. Members are not really doing a service to the cause which they have at heart.

Mr. Molson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman heard my speech. I began by dealing at length with the need for a comprehensive study of the mineral development of the whole of that area and I gave two particular examples of the most recent cases which have come before the right hon. Gentleman. I gave them as examples, and no more than examples, of the ill-effects of his major dereliction of duty in not having dealt with the matter by means of a general planning scheme.

Mr. Silkin: I do not think I have anything to withdraw. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) did refer to myself as having committed a grave dereliction of duty.

Mr. Molson: So the right hon. Gentleman has.

Mr. Silkin: He made that complaint on the strength of two decisions which he quoted in his speech. I will not deal with them at the same length as did the hon. Member, nor will I embark upon so many technicalities.
I accuse the hon. Member of suppression of facts. There are a good many things that he ought to have told the House if he wanted to present a true picture of the responsibility which lies upon my Ministry and myself. One would not have realised, for instance, from what has been said, that planning control over mineral workings first came into operation on 1st February, 1946; that before that date there was absolutely no control whatever, although there had been a previous Minister of Town and Country Planning and many previous Ministers of Health responsible for planning; that although, under the Town and Country Interim Development Act, 1943, the whole country was brought under interim development control, by an interim development order made by the Minister mineral workings were deliberately excluded from control. Nor did the hon. Gentleman or my hon. Friend and late colleague at the Ministry the Member for Brightside (Mr. F. Marshall) tell the House that the Hope Cement Works first began to operate in 1929 and

had, therefore, been in operation for 20 years. These are all material facts which ought to have been placed before the House if it is to judge whether there has been any grave dereliction of duty.
I agree with a great deal of what has been said about the present condition of The Peak district. Of course I agree with the need for preserving, so far as we possibly can, the amenities of that still lovely area. Of course, I recognise how important it is to a large mass of people living within a relatively short distance of The Peak district who look to it for their recreation and holidays and for the fresh air that is so necessary for people living in those congested areas. Of course, I realise all those things. That is one of the reasons why the Government propose in the near future to introduce a Measure to secure national parks for the nation. But it is really not serving the cause which the hon. Members have at heart to pretend that such spoliation of The Peak district that has taken place has been caused by any failure on the part of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning or by any decisions which they have given. The plain fact is that the whole of the damage to The Peak district has been caused by lack of planning control and at a time when actually there was no planning control whatever over the district.
I want to refer to the two decisions. One of them—Ashwood Dale—is not even in the proposed national park area; it is close by. It is a little difficult, therefore, to follow how one can be accused of doing an injury to the proposed national park area by something which happens outside it. We are left, therefore, with the case of the Hope Cement Works. An application was made for an extension of those works. I, as Minister, was bound to consider that application on its merits. I cannot adopt a general policy for all applications for mineral works in a certain area and say that we shall refuse them all. Every applicant for development is entitled to have his case considered, to have a public inquiry held, and to have a decision on the merits of his case.
In pursuance of that, the Hope Cement Works applied for an extension to their works. It is a material factor and I am afraid hon. Members cannot get away from it by making eloquent speeches.


that there is a great demand for cement in this country today. It is also true that this country can go without, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside said that, if industry conflicts with amenities, then industry should suffer, but, in saying that industry should suffer, my hon. Friend must really face up to the consequences that would flow from industry suffering. Going without cement in the last resort means going without a certain number of houses or without certain road improvements. It also means going without exports, and going without exports means going without certain things that we import in exchange. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has really faced up to the implications of his own statement that in the last resort we can do without industry? Of course, we can, but we cannot do without industry without inflicting a good deal of suffering upon the population of this country, and I think the people of this country are entitled to have some voice in the decision whether, in the event of this conflict, they would prefer beautiful scenery or the products of the mineral workings which are necessary for their livelihood.
In the case of the Hope Cement Works, there was a long inquiry and every opportunity was given to those who objected to state their case. I was faced with the fact, among others, that it was necessary that we should increase our output of cement by some two million tons a year. I was faced with the fact that in this area, in the immediate vicinity of the existing workings, there was to be found some of the best limestone in the country. I was also faced with the fact that this particular undertaking had already spent between £2 million and £3 million on their plant, machinery and equipment which they were actually working, and that there would be less damage by permitting them to extend than by any alternative of creating fresh workings in some other part, possibly, some other part of the Peak District.
It was also possible for me to require the undertaking, as a condition of my consent, to restore and reinstate some 40 acres of land which at the present moment have been rendered derelict; otherwise, I had no power to require them to do this. One of the consequences of this consent, therefore, is that 40 acres of land will be restored and made avail-

able to the public which would otherwise have stayed derelict for many years. In the light of all these considerations, I felt that I had no alternative but to permit this firm to carry out its extension.
Complaint has been made about the chimney of 400 feet, and I was asked whether this chimney could be seen from certain points. I am not going to pretend that a chimney of 400 feet is invisible. Of course it will be seen, and I readily admit that it will be seen over a wide area. I gave consent to a chimney of 400 feet after consideration of all the circumstances, including the efficiency of working, on the one hand, and the amenities on the other. Personally, I am bound to confess that I do not really feel very guilty about the height of the chimney. I do not know that a 400-foot chimney is any worse than a 200-foot chimney. I think opponents of the proposal are ready to use every single weapon with which to attack it, and this happens to be a weapon which they think is to hand.
If a chimney is ugly at all, a chimney of 200 feet is much more than half as ugly as a chimney of 400 feet. I do not think the ugliness necessarily lies in the height. Although I admit, as a matter of pure physics, that everything that goes up must come down in due course, it does not always come down in the same place. The higher the chimney, the greater and more widespread the area, the less the volume of the stuff that comes down, until we reach a point at which if the chimney were high enough, the grit, dust, soot, sulphur and so on that came out of it would be distributed over so large an area that nobody would notice it at all.
At the present moment, I admit that the nuisance is a serious one, and life in the vicinity of the Hope Cement Works must be very unpleasant. It was with a sincere desire to improve conditions in the vicinity, and after hearing all the scientific evidence, that I decided in favour of the higher chimney, which I felt would be less injurious to the people in the neighbourhood and not injurious to the people around. I may have been wrong, although I think I was right, and. after all, I had to make the decision.

Mr. Molson: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, has he given any consideration to a precipitator?

Mr. Silkin: Of course, we have; it is elementary. The company will use the best known method of preventing the production of soot and dust and so on, and that is one of the conditions. It is actually in the conditions that they will use the best known methods, and I understand, although I am not an authority on this subject, that it is possible to arrest something over 90 per cent. of the various particles that are produced and that only a very small proportion, something under 10 per cent., is actually released into the air.
I was accused of dealing improperly with Ashwood Dale, which is not even within the proposed national park area. A public inquiry was held——

Mr. F. Marshall: May I interrupt? It is quite true that Ashwood Dale may not be in the national park area, but I think my right hon. Friend should appreciate that this is one of the most beautiful roads in this country.

Mr. Silkin: I do appreciate that this is a beautiful road, but I thought that the burden of this discussion was my failure to safeguard national park areas. That was the case that was made, and this area is not in the national park.

Mr. Molson: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the Minister is supposed to be replying to my speech. Perhaps I may be allowed to point out to him that the subject of this Adjournment Debate is "Mineral Development in The Peak, including cement in the Hope Valley." I am fully aware of the fact that the place in Ashwood Dale where quarrying is taking place is 200 yards outside the boundary of the proposed national park.

Mr. Silkin: But it is outside, and I think I am replying to the hon. Member's speech and to the five other speeches that were made; I am not confining all my remarks to him. I thought that he had made the case that there was a special duty imposed on me to preserve the proposed national park areas pending legislation. I think it is right for me to point out that one of the two examples which he quoted is outside the national park area. I do not

care if it is 200 yards or 200 inches outside, it is outside, and I am entitled to say so. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about; he is becoming very squeamish.
With regard to Ashwood Dale, the hon. Gentleman complained that there was no public inquiry. I agree that there was no public inquiry; I am not obliged to hold a public inquiry. What I am obliged to do is to give the various parties an opportunity of stating their case to a person appointed by me. Where I think that justice will be served by a public inquiry, I hold one; where I think that the circumstances can be met by a hearing, I have a hearing. In this case I thought that the circumstances would be met by a hearing, for the reason that there was really no dispute about the principle of working Ashwood Dale; all the local authorities concerned had already agreed in principle to the working. There was some argument about the exact area, and there were one or two technical arguments, but there was no dispute between the undertakers and the local authorities. Therefore, I felt that a hearing at which all parties would be present would meet the case. There were present, in fact, all the local authorities concerned, the amenity societies were represented, and the Press was present.
Exactly what the hon. Member's complaint is about I have not been able to fathom. He made the point that in my letter to him I said that they had not complained until 1948. He then gave me a number of dates earlier than 1948 when the local authorities had complained about the public inquiry. But the point is—and that point still stands good—that, although they had a good many weeks' notice of the proposed hearing, they raised no objection to it at the time, and did not do so for many months. Even the first of the dates to which the hon. Gentleman refers was some months after the hearing—at any rate, it was after the hearing—and if they had felt so strongly about a public inquiry, the local authorities had a good many weeks in which to say so.
In fact, we have had no complaint whatever about the lack of a public inquiry from the amenity societies—the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and the other organizations—whose presence we always welcome on


these occasions because, very often, they give us very valuable assistance. So far as I could gather from the hon. Gentleman's speech, this was really the only complaint he had to make about Ashwood Dale except as to the exact limitations of the area which would be permitted to be worked. I can only say on that point that the matter was very closely gone into, and I do not think it would be profitable for me to endeavour to justify the exact boundaries of the permission in the House this evening.
May I tell the House what I regard as the duty of a Minister of Town and Country Planning in dealing with applications of this kind. Obviously, one has to have regard to amenity. I agree that we have a beautiful country, and a great many specially beautiful parts of the country which we want to preserve. But this is a very small country, and it is unfortunate that nature has placed some of the most valuable minerals, some of the minerals on which the life of this nation depends, in these beautiful areas. Very often, unfortunately, there is a conflict between the different uses to which the land should be put. Very often industry, mineral workings, the Services, agriculture, pure amenity, recreational land, housing, schools, all compete for the same piece of land. It would be delightfully easy—and I know it would satisfy the hon. Member for The High Peak if in those conflicts amenity always succeeded, and all the other claims went by the board. But I submit to the House that if I decided in that way, I should not be discharging my duty, nor the purpose for which the Ministry of Town and Country Planning was set up. I regard it as my duty to consider, to weigh up and to balance all these conflicting claims, and to endeavour to come to the right decision in the case of such a conflict over a particular piece of land.
I am very conscious of the fact that when there are six contestants for a particular piece of land, only one can be satisfied and five are bound to be disappointed and that, if they have the opportunity, the disappointed ones will raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House. But, nevertheless, it is quite impossible to satisfy more than the one, and it cannot always be the same one. In some cases, admittedly, amenity must dominate; there are cases where the

claims of amenity are so great that other considerations must go. However, there are other cases—and I submit that the case of the Hope Cement Works is one of them—where the claims of mineral workings are so vital to the necessities of this country that one cannot ignore them, and they have to override all other considerations. But, having said that—and one should make the best of a bad job—it is possible to do a great deal. It is possible, for instance, to secure that if there is a disfigurement to the countryside, that disfigurement is a temporary and not a permanent one, as has been the case in the past, and that the owner should be required to carry out his activities in such a way as to inflict the least possible damage to the countryside, and should be required to carry out restoration as he goes along.
Much of the damage to this country has been caused by owners being allowed, without let or hindrance, to spoil the countryside and, having taken out its wealth, to leave it in the condition in which they finished their workings. They were under no obligation to carry out any restoration whatsoever. Those days are gone. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning will ensure that in future where we are compelled to permit mineral and other workings to take place on our land, the owner will be required—and it will be a condition of the consent—to carry out his workings in the least injurious manner while he is actually working. Stringent conditions will be, and have been made, that restoration should take place not when the work is finished but, so far as practicable, as it goes on. It will not be necessary in the future to wait 20 years, as has been the case with the Hope Cement Works, before the land with which they have finished is restored. It will be done periodically according to the requirements of the Ministry of Town Country Planning, and it will be done as soon as practicable.
I regret that what I have said may not give complete satisfaction to those who regard amenity as the only important aspect of life, but to those who realise that the life of the community has to continue and that we cannot afford to dispense with the wealth that exists in our land, I hope that what I have said will give some satisfaction; and I hope that


they will realise that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning is doing a good job in ensuring that the bad conditions which have been allowed to grow up in the past will not continue in the future. The Ministry has done a great deal, of which incidentally, nothing is said—it gets, no medals for that—in preventing development from taking place which, in a large number of cases, would have been injurious to the countryside. On the whole, when the work of the Ministry is judged by generations to come, they will not regard what we have done as a betrayal or a dereliction of duty, but as a very good job well done and will recognise that while preserving so far as possible the amenities of the countryside, we have also done our very best to enable the life of the nation to continue.

Mr. F. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for periodic visits by his officers to this firm to see that the landscape plan is carried out?

Mr. Silkin: Of course, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it is not necessary for me to arrange this. It will be done as a matter of course. Having laid down conditions, we should regard it as part of our duty to see that these conditions were carried out, but, so far as it is necessary to give the assurance, I gladly give it.

Mr. Mitchison: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the principles of restoration which he has so eloquently set in Derbyshire also apply to iron-ore mining in Northamptonshire?

Mr. Silkin: The situation in Northamptonshire is that the works that are today taking place are without consent because they were begun at a time when there was no planning control. I hope my hon. and learned Friend heard my opening remarks. Planning control has existed only since February, 1946. Perhaps I ought not to say this, because it is prejudging an application that may be made in the future, which I ought not to do, but I would say that if an application came forward for an extension, in the same way as has been the case with the Hope Cement Works, certainly one would take into consideration the possibility of making similar conditions with regard to the iron-ore workings to those

which have been made with regard to cement workings.

Orders of the Day — PRESIDENT TRUMAN AND MARSHAL STALIN (PROPOSED MEETING)

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Piratin: Last Monday the British public and, I imagine, the people of other countries too, read their newspapers with a sigh of hope if not exactly with relief, for the announcement was made that in answer to questions by a news agency, Mr. Stalin had said that he would be pleased to meet President Truman.
Today at Question Time the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) asked the Prime Minister whether he would take any steps in this matter to ensure the coming together of the heads of State of the United States and the Soviet Union. The Prime Minister correctly said that, of course, he had no authority in the matter, but I should like to suggest that this is not exactly the occasion for formalities, and it is for this reason that I have sought to obtain the opportunity of an Adjournment Debate in the hope that the result of my efforts and perhaps those of others will be to influence the Government to take some steps in a direction which may lead to the path of peace.
We now know that Mr. Acheson, the Secretary of State of the United States, has brushed aside Mr. Stalin's offer. However, in the first place I should like the House to recall the various reactions which have taken place in the last week. I have looked at the newspapers, and the first reactions, which I imagine were of a spontaneous nature, show the true feelings in many cases of those who purport to express public opinion. The "Daily Herald" last Monday, in the report of its Washington correspondent, said:
If there is to be a meeting the first problem will be to settle what is the mutually suitable place.
The Washington correspondent of the "Daily Herald" saw as the first problem merely the question of a meeting place. He also reported that Senator Tom Connally, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, said:


Stalin's statement is a significant development. It will be welcomed by those anxious to preserve world peace.
He further reported that Mr. Warren Austin, the chief United States delegate to U.N.O., said:
The statement is apparently a move in the right direction but it contains many provisos.
On the same day the "News Chronicle" in its leader said:
The fact remains that Stalin's overtures to the West cannot be laughed off or cavalierly rejected.
A very interesting comment came from "The Times" Paris correspondent, who on 1st February wrote:
Whatever duplicity Moscow may have shown in the past, this new approach must not be ignored if it provides the slightest chance of alleviating the world malaise.
Those were the comments made on the very first day when the announcement of Stalin's replies to the newspaper agency was made in the Press.
But in the later days of last week there was a change, and in my opinion it was quite obvious that this change in large measure, if not completely, was inspired. One of the big points which emerged in the Press was that all this was a propaganda manoeuvre. "The Times" in its leader on 3rd February wrote:
It may be that Mr. Stalin does not really want a conference, but is only concerned to squeeze the last drop of propaganda from this exchange of messages.
On Sunday "Reynolds News" summed the matter up in its leader in this way:
Newspaper commentators have thought up every possible reason for Stalin's words except what might just conceivably have been the right one—that he meant what he said.
In the United States two voices have been speaking, and I make the point in this way because we are often told that there are two voices speaking in the Kremlin. The two voices in the United States are those of the President, Mr. Truman, and the Secretary of State, Mr. Acheson, who follows in this respect his predecessor, Mr. Marshall. It is interesting to note that though the invitation or offer, however indirect it was, was addressed to the President, Mr. Acheson gave his observations at a Press Conference on the Wednesday while President Truman spoke at a Press Conference on the Thursday, and to a large number of questions President Truman had no comments to make except to refer his

questioner to what Mr. Acheson had said on the previous day.
I would remind the House that in October President Truman attempted to send as his emissary to Moscow Chief Justice Vinson and he was prevented from doing so by Mr. Marshall who flew post haste to America to prevent it. President Truman then said this regarding his efforts, and I quote "The Times" of 19th October last:
Far from cutting across the existing negotiations within the scope of the United Nations or the Council of Foreign Ministers, the purpose of the mission was to improve the atmosphere in which they must take place and so help in producing fruitful and peaceful results.
I think that is the best answer to the Minister of State, who I assume will answer this Debate, and to the speech he made last week, I think on Thursday, when he complained about Mr. Stalin not using the normal diplomatic channels. We have been using the normal diplomatic channels for quite a long while and we have not been very successful. I am not opposed to using the normal diplomatic channels——

Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) says "we have been using." Who does he mean by "we"?

Mr. Piratin: The Government. I am as much at liberty to speak for the Government as is the hon. Member sitting on the benches opposite. I speak of course of the Government; I thought that was understood. This Government have been carrying on their negotiations through the normal diplomatic channels, but we cannot afford to ignore any channel other than the diplomatic one, and if such a door is opened to us, however slightly, I think we should take advantage of the fact and enter.
In fact, a gesture has been made—perhaps only a gesture—towards peace, and it is a gesture which we cannot ignore. The people of our country, if not many other countries, have been listening for a long while, since almost immediately after the end of the last war, to war talk, to re-armament talk, to re-armament plans, to the extension of conscription and, more recently in the last year or so, to military pacts. Now Mr. Stalin raises the question of peace and he answered four questions which were


posed to him. All four points are worthy of our consideration.
First, he spoke of a joint declaration with the United States not to go to war with each other. Of course, the Press and others would say that this already exists within the terms of the United Nations Charter. That is so, but I would remind the House that things are going on today which are much outside the terms of the United Nations Charter.

Mr. Tolley: By whom, in the main?

Mr. Piratin: By whom, in the main? Why, by us. The Government.

Mr. W. Shepherd: Which Government?

Mr. Piratin: Your Government. The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) does not like that, does he? The military preparations which are going on now, and particularly the military pacts which are proceeding, are not covered by the United Nations Charter.
The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) and I have on occasion raised a number of questions with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary concerning the basis of the Western Union Pact and, now, the basis of the coming Atlantic Pact. It has been made clear from the evasive answers given by the Ministers concerned that these do not hinge on the United Nations Charter. The Atlantic Pact, like the Western European Pact, is not a regional pact within the United Nations Charter. It is being carried through without consultation and without the sanction of the United Nations. It is not regional; it is a worldwide pact and a pact dominated by the United States. In fact, under the terms of the United Nations Charter it is illegal, according to Articles 51 and 52 of the Charter, Articles which the hon. Member for Luton and I have raised from time to time, and upon which we have received no satisfactory answers. Hence I say that this joint declaration by the foremost statesmen of the two greatset Powers could lay the basis for further peace measures.
The second point which Mr. Stalin answered concerned co-operation between the Soviet Union and the United States.

He said that he is willing to see co-operation between the Soviet Union and the United States for peace and gradual disarmament. Now it is argued that the United States has already disarmed since the war, but if one faces the facts and figures, one sees that 33 per cent. of the United States' budget this year is being devoted to military expenditure and, indeed, according to Mr. Truman himself, 76 per cent. of the whole of the budget is being spent on past and future wars. That excludes aid to foreign countries for military purposes. This question is not unimportant: as against that, only 6 per cent. of the American budget this years is being spent on social services—6 per cent. against 33 per cent. on war purposes. In the Soviet Union—and the right hon. Gentleman knows these arguments and these figures for he had to deal with them at Paris a few weeks ago—it is claimed that the percentage of budget expenditure for military purposes is 17 per cent. At the same time, 30 per cent. of the budget is for social services.
A Labour Government and a Labour Foreign Secretary and Minister of State should not ignore these figures. When the Minister of State presents, as, no doubt he will, the argument of the difference in the character of the budget of the Soviet Union compared with that of the United States, as he did in Paris, I would ask him—I am dealing with percentages, not actual figures—not to ignore those other figures which I have given and which he will not dispute I trust. I can substantiate them. The Minister of State must recognise that the basis in America is a lower basis than that in the Soviet Union, which is an overall basis, and that while in America the percentage of the budget on social services is only 6 per cent., in the Soviet Union it is 30 per cent.
I mention these figures to show that a country which is out to provide social services to that degree is not a country out to make war or that desires war. As Mr. Warren Austin is reported to have said, this is a move in the right direction. I believe that the move that Mr. Stalin has suggested, that they should come together for the purpose of gradual disarmament, is something at which we should look with consideration.

Mr. W. Shepherd: Since the hon. Member has got these figures. I think


the House would like to hear from him how many divisions the Americans can put into the field at the present time and how many divisions the Soviet Union can put into the field at the present time.

Mr. Piratin: I am afraid I cannot give the answer. Time and again when I and other hon. Members have asked the various Ministers concerned to give us information concerning our own armies or services, we have not been able to get the information. Nor am I disputing that it is not right to give such information. The hon. Member is really out of Order in asking me, as a Member of this House, to give information about a foreign country.
The third point with which Mr. Stalin dealt was the question of Berlin and he said that the Berlin problem could be solved if there were a return to Four-Power co-operation. I put it to the Minister of State frankly and bluntly: Can we afford to disregard this? We can only afford to disregard this if we have some other solution. He knows perfectly well, as the House knows, whatever our differences may be, that we have no other solution, that we are jogging along hoping that something may turn up. But we have no other solution, and there is no reason why, in the light of this offer, we should not attempt to get together to see if, on this occasion, we can resolve the matter on the basis of Four-Power co-operation.

Mrs. Middleton: But it was the Soviet Union that broke up Four-Power co-operation in Germany.

Mr. Piratin: That is a matter of opinion according to one's reading of the facts.

Mr. Platts-Mills: It is a simple matter of fact.

Mr. Piratin: The facts, in my opinion, disclose a very different state of affairs from that in which one has been led to believe, by the distortions in the Press of this country. It was not the Soviet Union that introduced the new currency. It was Bizonia that introduced the new currency. It was not the Soviet Union that was responsible for the impasse that developed from that. Therefore, I put the question to the hon. Lady. If she wants to blame the Soviet Union for responsibility, she cannot deny that,

according to the published statement, Mr. Stalin said that he was willing to discuss the question of Berlin, among other things, on the basis of Four-Power co-operation. If she wants to insist that the Soviet Government were responsible in the first place, and have been responsible from the beginning to the end, will she not agree that this gesture is one worthy of consideration, and that our Government ought to take up the gesture? Does she not agree with that?

Mrs. Middleton: That all depends upon the terms upon which such cooperation is to take place in the future.

Mr. Piratin: Absolutely right.

Mr. Platts-Mills: It must be discussed.

Mr. Piratin: Absolutely right. I would point out to the hon. Lady that so far as America is concerned—the offer was not addressed to us—but so far as the American Government are concerned, far from their trying to find out more details, there has been plenty of adverse propaganda, as I said before. I think the hon. Lady will agree with me that this offer is worth looking into more carefully. I shall put one or two points forward for her consideration later in my arguments.
The fourth point that Mr. Stalin, made was the fact that he was prepared to meet President Truman to confer on the question of a peace pact. I ask the House to remember on these points that, while it is true they were made not in the most formal way, while it is true that the Prime Minister of this country and the President of the United States may take objection to that informality and that the offers were not made through the usual diplomatic channels, one thing cannot be overlooked, and that is that Mr. Stalin made these offers to meet President Truman at a time not when his Government or the system which it stands for is on the decline, but rather when it is growing stronger. Let us face that. It is a fact that so far as the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are concerned, their economies are stabilised and moving forward, which cannot be claimed for other countries.
Is it not the case that the world had a bit of a shock last week, when the Soviet Union was prepared to throw into the pool 100 million bushels of wheat,


which will not be such a bad thing for our country and other countries who want to buy wheat for their people? Obviously, the Soviet Union can only do this when she feels strong enough to be able to do so. These arguments are beyond dispute. As regards the case of Communism, no one is disputing the events taking place in China, and however one may want to interpret them, the conclusion must be that Communism is on the advance and, therefore, the Soviet Prime Minister, in making these offers, is not making them at a time when he is on the retreat, but at a time when he is strong and getting stronger.
The same thing cannot be said of the capitalist Powers, and so far as Western European economy is concerned, we are not marching forward, in spite of the figures which we have had from time to time from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade. The "Economist" on 8th January, said, with regard to European aid:
There is no means by which the Marshall countries can, even with the present scale of American aid, prevent a serious fall in their standards of living in 1952.
There were several arguments set out to support that proposition. The House must be aware of the reports in the Press this weekend and today of the business slump in America. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) has no right to laugh like that. I am not concerned with business profits and the way shares go up or down.

Mr. Platts-Mills: The hon. Gentleman is; he is a bear.

Mr. W. Shepherd: I was only laughing because the collapse of American economy is something that has been prophesied by the Communists in their speeches throughout the world for a long time, and it has not materialised.

Mr. Piratin: If the hon. Gentleman was more acquainted with the American Press reports of authoritative sources, he would know perfectly well that the chances in 1949 of avoiding a slump are roughly one to two, on the estimate of American industrialists. We all know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in

his White Paper on the four-year programme said in the preamble that the success of the four-year programme depended upon a stable economy. There are many factors, primarily the factor of the American slump, which will decide the question of a stable economy.
Therefore, I make the point that this offer is made at a time when the Soviet Union is stable, when Communism is on the advance, and when the countries in Western Europe are not stable and capitalism is on the decline. There are differences in America. There are some who do not want peace. Here is the answer then to the hon. Member for Bucklow. Here is a quotation from the "United States News" of 31st December:
Peace, if it really arrived, would upset things. At present arms expenditure and aid to other countries are bolstering up business.
That is a businessman's view. Obviously such people do not welcome a peace offer; they do not welcome what has now become popularly known as the "peace offensive." On the other hand, there are in America forces who want peace: these are the forces of the common people, many of whom showed it when they supported Mr. Truman, particularly because of his attempts to send Judge Vinson to Moscow.
Britain is most in need of a peace policy. The American "cold war" policy has been hitting Britain hardest of all; it has not affected Russia, and it has not affected other countries so much. It has affected Britain most, for in world markets Britain and America stand out as the main competitors. Britain is of all countries the most vulnerable to war. The harmful effects of the Marshall Plan are already visible: we have a four-year programme—not a plan, but a programme—of austerity; our international trade is already affected by the competition bolstered up in Germany and Japan. In the past week there was a joint deputation of industrialists and trade unionists to protest against the unfair competition from Germany and Japan because of their low wages and poor conditions. The Eastern European trade, which is open to us and upon which our economy could flourish in a large measure, is being strangled by the United States ban on this grain.
What we want is a policy for peace, not a policy which lines us up with any warmongering clique in the United States. It is for this reason that I make this plea as sincerely as it is possible to do, following up what was said by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) this afternoon; is it not possible for the Government to take the initiative; to ignore the formalities? It is perfectly true, as the Prime Minister said today, that he has not been involved in or informed officially of these exchanges. But there is nothing to prevent the Prime Minister by-passing the normal diplomatic channels, as has been done in the past, and making an approach now. Let him make that approach, suggesting a meeting of the heads of the four States. It was reported in "The Times" that M. Queille was not reluctant to take part in such discussions, and I am sure that if the Prime Minister made such an offer it would be welcomed in France, and of course in many other countries. If Mr. Stalin's offer was merely propaganda the Prime Minister's move would expose it. If, however, as I believe, his offer was genuine, the Prime Minister's move can only lead to an assured peace. I beg the Minister of State to convey these considerations to the Prime Minister if he and, as I hope, the House feel them to be worthy of it.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I am sure that the House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for coming down here tonight, although I cannot see what part His Majesty's Government can have in the informal approach which has been made by Mr. Stalin to Mr. Truman. This afternoon the Prime Minister very rightly said that he had no official recognition of the fact that this approach had been made, and it seems difficult to see what we in this country can do. However, we are, entitled, as the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has said, to try to assess the worth of this approach.
The hon. Member said that the people of this country sighed with relief. It would be very interesting to find out why they did sigh with relief, if they did so. Did they sigh because Great Britain and the United States during the last three years pursued a policy of territorial expansion? Did they sigh because the Government of Great Britain have been

trying to force their will and domination upon small States? Did they sigh because the United States of America are building up huge armed forces to start a fresh war? I do not believe that the people of this country, if they sighed at all, sighed for any of those reasons.
They might sigh because of the great disappointment they felt at what has arisen out of the last World War. They might sigh because one of our Allies has refused to act in a manner which one might expect of an ally after the war had been won. They might sigh because no peace treaties are possible with any of the major combatants. They might sigh because the veto is used on almost every occasion by one Power. They might sigh because of the treatment that has been meted out to hundreds of thousands of people in Eastern Europe. They might sigh because the rights of man are trampled down in every country which colleagues of the hon. Gentleman have the opportunity of dominating.
Those are the things for which the people of this country sigh, and rightly so. Everybody in this country, irrespective of party, has a right to make a stand for those liberties for which we fought in the war and for which the people in Western Europe have fought for centuries. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End has threatened us with the growing force of the Soviet Union. He says, "Look how strong we are getting and look how weak you are getting." I do not believe the people of Western Europe are going to be frightened by the threats of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End or of the threats of the followers of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills), who is sitting beside him. As I see it that is not a true statement of the position. In fact, the position of the Western Powers is getting stronger and the position relatively of Russia and her satellites, including China, is getting weaker.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Did the hon. Gentleman say China?

Mr. Shepherd: China has caused a lot of trouble to those who before tried to capture her, and I am quite convinced that, for quite a considerable time, China will be more of a liability than an asset.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Suppose the Chinese people capture their own country, does the hon. Gentleman then say that somehow China will go on giving trouble to the Chinese people?

Mr. Shepherd: I should say that, because of the ravages of the war which has been going on for such a long number of years, China will be more of a liability than an asset for some considerable time.

Mr. Platts-Mills: To the Chinese people? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a great advantage to China if the people there at last came into possession of their own country and dispossessed those antique feudal lords, who have held a tight grip on the whole of the landed estates of China? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that even now, the Chinese people have dispossessed these people and that, therefore, China, as it will be tomorrow, will be a greatly improved place for the whole of the Chinese people?

Mr. Shepherd: I cannot, of course, answer that hypothetical question, except to say that in those countries in South Eastern Europe, where a similar blessing has been bestowed, the population do not seem as appreciative as the hon. Member for Finsbury thinks they should be.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking from his own knowledge?

Mr. Shepherd: It is not true to say that the people of Western Europe are getting weaker, and that the peoples of Eastern Europe are getting stronger. Rather, is it true to say that the countries of Western Europe are themselves getting stronger, and every month that passes will see a growth of relative strength of the Western Powers. Therefore, we should not at all be influenced by the statement made by the hon. Member for Mile End—that those of us who are in Western Europe should accept this offer, because we are getting weaker and the Soviet Union is getting stronger.

Mr. Piratin: I did not say anything of the kind. All I tried to show was that this offer was made at a time when the Soviet Government was not in a position of weakness, but of strength. I did not say that we must accept it because that

was the case. I merely said that we should acknowledge that to be the case, and have regard to it.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not appreciate the subtlety which the hon. Member displays. All that I am concerned to say is that the growing strength of the Western Powers in every sense, ought not to allow us to say that because of the circumstances we must take advantage of this offer. Let me remind the House that, in the economic sense, great power resides with those who are in the Western Hemisphere. Russia and her satellites are starved of essential capital goods. Their tongues are hanging out for capital goods and they have to turn, to this country and the United States for all the essential capital goods they need. It is ridiculous in those circumstances to talk about the strength of Eastern Europe. We all know that all those countries behind the iron curtain are having an extraordinarily difficult time not only politically, but economically. We see constant disturbances. We heard of the arrest of 1,000 Poles a short time ago. In Hungary and in Czechoslovakia the same thing is happening. Those countries are all dependent for the development of their economy upon the powerful Western economy, in particular of the United States and Great Britain. Let us have none of this nonsense about the East being powerful and the West impotent. The truth is that the West is very powerful indeed.
In those circumstances this country ought to have no truck at all with any suggestions or ideas put forth unofficially by Mr. Stalin. Not long before the war Hitler was always putting forward suggestions of this kind. He said that he had no more territorial ambitions and that what he wanted was peace with the world, yet on that very day he was actually concerned with drawing up plans for a future war. We should be very ill-advised, in the light of all the evidence to the contrary, to place too much value upon these statements. We have established since the war adequate machinery to deal with all the representations that need to be dealt with. However much we may be critical of the Foreign Secretary, he has shown a desire to co-operate with the Soviet Union. We have shown a tolerance which is exemplary; many


people believe that it has been too tolerant. We have shown that we are prepared even to depart from bargains to our advantage in order to get some sort of solution, yet all the time we have been shown and a boorish truculence by the Soviet Union.
As one who does not like war any more than any other hon. Member I say that if we are to save civilization—and we are concerned now with the saving of civilisation because wherever the Soviet Union gains dominance there is nothing left of what we believe to be civilization—it can be done only by standing up for the ideals in which we believe and saying that we demand from those who treat with us a certain standard of honesty in their conduct, a recognition of what the world has grown up to believe to be right and a recognition of those rights of man on which the whole of civilisation is founded. If anybody, including the hon. Gentleman opposite, tries to trample on those rights we must resist. We must make clear the ideological position in which we stand and must say that we are not a poor nation, incapable of making an effort.
We have behind us not merely the small people of the world, but the might and greatness of the world and we are prepared to treat with anybody, including Mr. Stalin, with sincerity and with every desire to help him if need be in overcoming his present economic difficulties; but we demand some sort of sincerity. Mr. Stalin can demonstrate his sincerity at the present time by calling off the blockade of Berlin and saying that he will not use the veto as he has hitherto done and that he will relinquish territory which he has achieved by force or semi-force. If he does that, there is not a man or woman in this country who would not welcome the outcome, because we do not want war in any circumstances, but there are very few people in this House and outside who are prepared to accept peace at the price of appeasement, especially when we know from experiences during the past few years what appeasement will mean for the nations of Europe.

9.36 p.m.

Mrs. Corbet: After the speech of the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd), it is difficult for me to add anything.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Corbet: For the benefit of the House, he has put forward sentiments which I share very fully. I did not want to have such sentiments. In fact, I was predisposed entirely the other way. In 1945, I shared with the majority of the people of this country an immense gratitude for the help which the Soviet Union had rendered us in the fight against Hitler and I was prepared to believe that the Soviet Union meant what she said about making the world secure for peace in the future. It is with very great reluctance that I have come to the conclusion that the Soviet Union did not mean what she said.
The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has talked about this so-called offer of Stalin being regarded as a propaganda manoeuvre. If that is so, it is surely not the first time that we have had reason to regard actions and sayings of the Soviet Union as propaganda manoeuvres. While I was in Paris for the United Nations Assembly which was held from September to December last year it was very forcibly brought home to me that the speeches which were churned out again and again, were the same old speeches and that they could be made for no other reason than for propaganda—for there was no logic in them and no attempt to argue the reasoned statements put up by other nations. It was the same kind of thing to which we have listened tonight from the hon. Member for Mile End. We could go all over the country and hear that same speech churned out at various meetings in precisely the same terms. I am sorry that it should be so because for us the securing of peace is a serious matter. We regard with loathing the fact that something which is so dear to the hearts of all the peoples of the world should be made the subject of mere propaganda speeches in favour of a certain system of society with which a great many people in the world most emphatically disagree.
Sir, if you had listened, as I listened at Paris, to the attacks made on this country, gratuitous attacks that took no account of the fact that even though at one time we may not have been so fortunate in our Government as we are at the moment and that, though we may have been culpable to some degree, this country is doing its utmost to achieve


for the peoples under its rule everywhere the best standard of life it is possible and practicable——

Mr. Platts-Mills: What, in the Colonies?

Mrs. Corbet: Yes. I listened to attacks made on the British rule of the Colonies at this day when we know that this Government is doing its utmost to deal with the many tremendous problems that the Colonies are bound to bring to us. I listened to such attacks and realised that we were being attacked because we were one of the few nations that dared to give the United Nations the facts about our rule in the Colonies so that they could be talked about. I remember at the same time, that the very information and statistics which we were prepared to give to the United Nations were withheld from us deliberately by the Soviet Union and the countries allied with her. I had to listen to that, and I had to hear the words "murderers," "traitors" and "assassins" used by the Soviet delegates in regard to any witness we were able to bring to give evidence in respect of conditions obtaining in Soviet Russia.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Is my hon. Friend really saying that the world is not fully informed as to the state of affairs in those countries who are now equal partners in the United Nations?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is adducing an argument. He has made about four speeches since I have been in the Chair by way of interruption. If he wants to be called, he had better listen to the speeches and then make his own comments later on.

Mrs. Corbet: If the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) has any doubt about the kind of language used at the United Nations by the Soviet delegates he had better look up the records.

Mr. Platts-Mills: It is the facts, not the language I am querying.

Mrs. Corbet: I know that many of the witnesses whose evidence we had occasion to use, whose names we could not always disclose because they had relatives in the countries concerned and would be afraid for the safety of their families—those quite credible, decent witnesses were simply labelled in the mass by the Soviet

delegates as murderers, assassins and traitors for the reason that in the eyes of the Soviet anybody who dares to leave the country is a traitor. It would be interesting to know why the Soviet delegate subscribed to the Article on the Declaration of Human Rights, which says that everyone has the right to leave his country, in view of the attitude we know they have taken up regarding the Soviet wives of British citizens in this country.

Mr. Piratin: Would the hon. Lady ask herself the question why this Government subscribed to the principle of equal pay for equal work and does not keep to it?

Mrs. Corbet: I am not asking this Government at the moment——

Mr. Piratin: I hope she will come to it in due course.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Did the hon. Lady herself subscribe to the Article which abolished slavery?

Mrs. Corbet: I do not think I need go into that, but is it likely that this country would refuse to subscribe to an Article which abolished slavery? No. The fact of the matter was that the Article already abolished slavery, and the Soviet delegate was not satisfied with it but wanted absolutely to prohibit slavery.

Mr. Platts-Mills: I beg pardon. That is quite right.

Mrs. Corbet: I did not see the difference between the two things. There is much more I can say about the attitude of the Soviet delegates to the Declaration of Human Rights. It became quite clear that one thing they did not want was to have that Declaration passed through the Assembly at all. After experiencing the tactics of Communists in this country, as well as everywhere else, we witnessed their skilful methods of manipulating democratic procedure to hold up proceedings so that the Declaration of Human Rights, that should have passed through the committee in two or three weeks, took nearly eleven weeks to get through. The Soviet delegates always wanted the last word, irrespective of how many speeches they had made, showing a complete lack of sportsmanship in the whole business.
At the very end, at three o'clock one morning, when we were rather hopeful


of getting the Declaration through, their final manoeuvre was to put forward a motion to the effect that the whole thing should be postponed for another year. Fortunately, however, we thought that the Declaration of Human Rights was worth getting through the Assembly this year, even if the Soviet delegates did not think so. What is quite evident, if one goes out to the United Nations, is that there is no intention on the part of the Soviet Union to co-operate. I am exceedingly sorry that that is so. I wish they could realise how much better it would be for the world if they could remove from our minds the fear and menace of a possible future war.
It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Bucklow has said, that, so far from Communism being stronger than before, it is, in fact, weaker that it has ever been. I cannot imagine that the Soviet Union would have embarked upon their Berlin embargo if they had realised it would be defeated by the air-lift. They cannot have considered what would be the strength of the Western Powers in that respect. They cannot really have thought that the Western Powers could get together, resolved to secure military co-ordination and, within a limited sphere, that complete military security which we had hoped would have been possible within the sphere of the whole of the United Nations. I think they are feeling exceedingly anxious about what will come out of the North Atlantic Pact, the making of which I contemplate with the greatest relief. At last we shall have something with which we can answer the Soviet Union when they try to repeat the aggressive tactics that Hitler made only too familiar to the world.
I am glad that the world is learning to listen, and I hope that we shall not take notice of such an unofficial procedure as has been reported to us in the Press and which the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) desires us to take seriously. I would merely repeat what the hon. Member for Bucklow has already said. If the Soviet Union is desirous of co-operating, the machinery for doing so is open to it. For nearly four years there has been the opportunity for them to co-operate with the rest of the world in securing peace, disarmament and the control of atomic energy, and for doing all those things which are so dear to

us all and which are so necessary to the peace of the world.
Let me repeat: Let them but make a practical gesture, let them but lift the Berlin embargo, let them but withdraw the support given to the rebels in Greece, let but those nations of the earth now troubled by Communism be restored to peace by the command of the Soviet Union, and then we can say with great sights of relief, "Ah, she really means it; Russia is coming in to co-operate." Then, indeed, we shall be pleased to cooperate with her, as we have shown all along is our sincere desire and our firm conviction.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Let me take as my text the hon. Lady's words "Ah, she really means it," and develop it at once by saying that I cannot believe that the hon. Lady really meant what she has been saying about the Soviet Union. It is astonishing to all of us to see North-West Camberwell and Bucklow emerging together on this issue. It is astonishing to see the extreme right wing of the Tory Party absolutely at one with those few amongst our back benchers who support the Front Bench on the Labour side. That is something of a revelation.
As this Adjournment Debate has ranged wide, I think it is time to return to the point that was opened up by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) when he begged the Prime Minister to take the opportunity that was offered to him by this new development. This kind of opportunity will not necessarily go on recurring for ever. It has, in fact, occurred more than once in the past. After all, it was the Soviet Union which said, "Let us now discuss and plan and agree to slash all world armaments by one-third." It was greeted, of course, with derision by the Government and by some hon. Members in this House. Let us, however, study that argument. If we have a cut by one-third—unless, of course, one had only three men and could not retain a workable unit—no one would suffer by the cuts and the moral victory for the countries of the world by means of such a cut cannot be over-estimated. But the proposal was received with derisive laughter from Bucklow and other backward areas and from the Front Bench.
Again, it was advanced that it was propaganda, but what is the explanation of that? Of course, the explanation is that the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) is on the side of those who want war—the great imperialist powers of the world, who want war—and they laugh at the notion of anyone else asking for armaments to be cut at such a time. They are the people of the world who hold the atom bomb and are multiplying it, brandishing it and threatening other people with it, and whose statesmen and leaders are planning where the blow will strike and openly declaring their intentions——

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman says we laugh at the suggestion for reducing armaments, but would he not agree that, if we are seriously to consider the proposition, we have to know what are the armaments of the countries who are going to be signatories to the agreement? The hon. Gentleman knows our armaments; will he tell us the strength of the Soviet Army at the time the offer was made?

Mr. Platts-Mills: Can we have anything more nonsensical? It is quite possible, since the representatives of the countries interested in disarmament would come together to discuss the problem, that they would have to go into this matter, and the Soviet authorities say, in reply to the kind of question which the hon. Gentleman asks, that they would certainly disclose their military forces when such matters were going to be raised. The question is put to me whether, since I know what our Forces are, I can state the strength of the Soviet Forces. Thank heaven, I do not know what ours are; if I did, I might be more apprehensive than I am.
Those who have adopted the point of view of the hon. Member for Bucklow and of the Front Benches on either side of the House, now frankly admit that they have no information of the Soviet Forces. It has been suggested by indirect inference that the Soviet Forces are very high. The propaganda media of the world have taken up the cry that the Soviets are rearming, but not a shred of evidence can be produced to show that the Soviets have, in fact, turned to rearmament, or that they have substantially altered the ratio of their men under arms to civilians

in recent months or, indeed, in recent years.

Mrs. Corbet: That is what we said. They have not altered their ratio. They have not disarmed as they should have done.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Let me give a simple example about which the Prime Minister knows. When he went to Potsdam before the Eastern war was over, the Soviet Union had substantially disbanded the basis of its first line troops. This was exemplified at Potsdam in a simple way, which many of us have in mind. There the three Powers produced armed guards to do honour to the statesmen attending the Conference. The American Army appeared with their wonderful tanks, all done up to the nines with their smart white helmets. The Desert Rats appeared done up with far more blanco than was modest, smart as could be in their Sherman tanks. I know not which Guards division of tanks represented the Soviet Army, but there was not a single armoured car among them. They had all gone back to the Soviet Union. They had only a few cars which they had taken from the Germans. They had already disbanded the front line forces. The best men being in the forces, they had to go back and get on with the job of social reconstruction. Not only has there been immense demobilisation in the Soviet Union, but the whole atmosphere of war has disappeared. It has not disappeared in this country. If one goes to our northern main line stations, one gets the impression from the number of troops on the move that the war atmosphere is reappearing. The stations begin to look quite warlike again.
I now turn back to the burden of my speech which was to point out that these proposals from the Soviet Union had been rebuffed by us. Now, comparable proposals have come from the other side, or rather from one source—from Mr. Truman just before the election there. We must assume that he meant these gestures to be gestures of peace. He proposed, first of all, through Bedell Smith, a direct approach to Stalin. That was rebuffed—not by the Soviet authorities, to the horror of the people of the world. When the gestures of Mr. Truman and Mr. Bedell Smith were made, a sigh of relief arose from the representatives of


the people of the whole world, but it was stifled by the acts of those in authority in America and in this country who declined to permit those gestures to be acted upon. It is conceivable that President Truman did not want it to be acted upon, but perhaps I ought not to make that suggestion.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

Mr. Platts-Mills: I do not want to detain the House or prevent my right hon. Friend from replying, but perhaps I might be allowed to take a moment longer. Mr. Marshall, who was probably responsible for preventing those overtures which came from the United States becoming effective, has gone from the scene. That should lift a burden from the hearts of the world, and it allows my right hon. Friend a wonderful opportunity of cashing in, if he wishes, as has been suggested in the Debate.
The cry that is raised against the proposal is that the Soviet Union are threatening the world. That was stated by the two previous speakers. It was stated boldly by my right hon. Friend this afternoon in reply to my Question asking whether the Soviet Union could be invited to join in the proposed North Atlantic Pact. I would like any hon. Member to indicate a single shred of evidence to show that the Soviet Union are threatening anybody. Where is the proof of the kind of thing that is common form throughout the United States of America and in the headlines of certain capitalist newspapers in our country? Where is the evidence of the romantic planning of war moves that is common form to statesmen—even certain responsible statesmen—publicists and warriors alike in our country, not to say certain Archbishops as well?
I suggest that this is quite a relevant consideration. People cannot be brought to the point of joining in a war unless they are prepared for it. I was horrified to hear my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet) make some comparison with Hitlerite aggression. Where have the Russian armies marched in? What is the nature

of this aggression that occupies foreign countries without soldiers? I speak of countries of Eastern Europe which are renowned for the power of their people in resistance in guerrilla movements and the like, as we all know from the last war. It is said that such countries are occupied without soldiers and that the people in those countries make no attempt to resist.

Mrs. Corbet: They are police States.

Mr. Platts-Mills: The cry goes up "police States." Cannot the people resist? These are not police States in any sense of the term. I would ask those who have not been to see the Soviet Union and who would not make a gesture of friendship towards that country or towards Eastern Europe, what is their evidence that these countries are run in such a way?

Mr. W. Shepherd: We cannot get there.

Mr. Platts-Mills: The hon. Member says, "We cannot get there, and therefore we assume they are police States."

Mr. Shepherd: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is that I have twice been refused admission to the Soviet Union and yet he is received there with open arms? If there is something to be seen there which would be to the advantage of the Soviet Union, why do they seek to keep me and other hon. Members on this side and on the other side of the House from entering?

Mr. Platts-Mills: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive any imputations which arise from my answer, but it was he who asked me the question. I gladly give the answer, because I am sure I know it. Let us remember that before the war the Soviet Union would not only have willingly invited the hon. Gentleman but would have in part financed his tour. They were longing for visitors to go. They were boasting of their achievements. They are equally proud today. If the hon. Gentleman would read the most recent report from the U.N.O. office of statistics he will see that the vast increase in world production last year was primarily due to the increased production of the Soviet Union. He who bothers to run and read, can read it as he runs. It is so obvious. Most people who limit themselves to the capitalist Press run, but do not read it.


They do not get a chance to read it, either running or sitting still.
What is the difference today? By contrast the hon. Member could go to Poland or to Czechoslovakia, and the airlift to Czechoslovakia is much quicker and much easier than the air-lift to Berlin. The hon. Member could be there tomorrow and he would be welcomed and shown the whole country. What is the difference? It is this: under the stress of war and under the threat of war from capitalist countries surrounding her, the Soviet Union is now embarking on industrial expansion which exceeds anything in the sphere of development the world has ever known before. Taking the highest technique of the old capitalist countries production has expanded in a remarkable way. They know that those whose voice is represented in this House by the hon. Member for Bucklow, and those holding the atomic bomb and who want to use it, have not the maps to guide their weapons. What is more, President Truman's advisers quite frankly say: "Our trouble is that we just have not got the maps." They have said that publicly, as shown in, the reports of their officials, their technical advisers, dealing with the Marshall Plan. They said their trouble was to get maps to use in approaching the Soviet Union.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Perhaps the hon. Member will permit me to intervene because I am rather interested in this. Have they shifted Moscow?

Mr. Platts-Mills: Some right hon. Gentleman might say that, but of course no country puts all its eggs in one basket. Moscow, great as it is, wonderfully attractive city as it is—and one can easily go there if one makes oneself known as a person who wants world peace and co-operation between the great countries—is not now the central point, the focus, the centre of gravity of Soviet industry.
I do not suggest that the hon. Member for Bucklow would be one of those willing to assist the Americans to get these maps, but how are the Russians to know that, bearing in mind the kind of utterance we have heard from him today? If we were they and the hon. Gentleman for Bucklow were some-

one else, having heard his speech we would have said "Cross him off for the next few years until we know the atom bomb has been de-militarised." I am quite positive that insecurity, fear of the threat of the brandished atom bomb, is the reason why the hon. Gentleman for Bucklow and conceivably some right hon. Gentlemen could not go to the Soviet Union today. I make the contrast sharply, as I have made it already, between Russia and Czechoslovakia, where the Skoda works and the Bruno works are known to every American who flew over Europe so that there is no point in trying to create confusion over their whereabouts.

Mr. W. Shepherd: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the reason why I am not admitted to the Soviet Union is because I might draw a map? I can assure him if I did draw a map it would be so bad that it would be a disaster for anyone using it.

Mr. Platts-Mills: If the hon. Member for Bucklow explains that, maybe it will make a difference. Can he suggest any other reason why there should be this profound change from the days before the last war to today? He cannot deny the foundations of my argument.
I should like to develop some answers to questions raised by my hon. Friends, but I think I will limit myself to answering only one point, that raised by the hon. Lady the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet). It is true that people in Western Europe are completely uninformed about the Soviet Union. I should be the last to suggest that the standard of living of the people in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union compares with the West. Of course it does not. But there is no doubt that if we go forward without planning, without any attempt at the socialisation of our country, as we are at present, they will soon catch up with us, and the report of the immense increase in their production, shows precisely that.
Why did they obstruct the Declaration of Human Rights? Because every time, in every act of international relationship in which they join, they insist that things shall have teeth. The Prime Minister denounced the present Human Rights document and agreement as being simply a pious hope. The Soviet Union wants to


include in any international agreement on human rights, things which in the Eastern countries of Europe and the Soviet Union are now axiomatic—not merely a right to vote and to have a member of parliament, to have a white knight in armour to represent them, but the right to work, the guaranteed right to work, the right to equal pay for women, the right to leisure. It is because we do not guarantee these, that we cannot get Soviet agreement to a mere pious wish.

10.10 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): I should, of course, want to admit that in the view of the Government there is no subject more important than this one which we started to discuss tonight. In that sense we are indebted to the offer made by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). However, my difficulty is that in attempting to address myself to a question of this complexity and of these dimensions I find myself admitting immediately—not only here, but in any place where I have been asked to speak on the subject—that there is a Soviet point of view, that there are reasons why they are edgey and cautious, that there are claims which they may reasonably offer to any international gathering.
However, I am no match in this business for the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) and the hon. Member for Mile End. I think, perhaps, I should address myself to the hon. Member for Finsbury rather than to the hon. Member for Mile End. He brings to this subject a self-righteousness, a self-confidence and an intellectual arrogance without parallel. I was very interested when he interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet) to protest that she had voted against the prohibition of slavery. It is true that a second later he withdrew it; but it was no accident that the hon. Gentleman made that interruption—not an accident at all. I have had exactly the same claim made soberly in a committee room of the United Nations.
It will be within the recollection of the House that in our old League of Nations Convention we used to have an accession clause. We did so because it was proper that the Government of this country should consult the governments of our dependent territories, with their varying

degrees of autonomy. Until just after the war there was never any objection to that. It was granted automatically. Since then, in our time, whenever a convention has been offered, we have made our usual reservation, with which many other countries associate themselves, asking that we should be permitted an accession clause.
We are met with the Soviet reply, which is a piece of propaganda ground out like sausages. It is seriously said by Mr. Vyshinsky, for example, that the reason why we asked that the accession clause should be inserted into the convention prohibiting the traffic in women and children, and obscene and pornographic literature was that we were actually indulging in proceedings of that kind in our Colonies. But everyone knew perfectly well that the Press, travellers, authors, photographers, visitors, have frequent access to our Colonies. No one produced a shred of evidence, but it was good propaganda. It was not meant to impress us. It would not impress this House. It was churned out by steady repetition, and directed to the places where they wanted to put it. The great tragedy about the distinguished Gentlemen, the hon. Members for Mile End and Finsbury is that they have become the victims of their own propaganda. I suggest that they should go home and read again the sad story of Lot's wife. They are, intellectually, pillars of salt.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would develop his argument and say whether we still have slavery in the Empire.

Mr. McNeil: That is a very good example of exactly the point I was making. The conditions in our Colonies are not perfect. We have admitted that again and again, but let us once make that admission and for propaganda purposes the Colonies are peopled only by slaves, they are run by slave drivers and the whip is the only kind of instrument that we employ.
On the question of maps, I remember Mr. Vyshinsky discussing the question of atomic energy at one of the first meetings of the United Nations and stating that we already had the maps and that they were issued by a United States oil firm. And now we are


told that the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) may only be able to go to Moscow because he is poor at drawing maps. Am I to understand that the reason why the Soviet wives are not permitted to leave Moscow is because they can all draw good maps? What nonsense.
Let me give another and more relevant example. The hon. Member for Mile End fell into one of his own traps, too. He said that what Marshal Stalin had offered was a settlement on Berlin on the condition that there was a return to Four-Power co-operation. I thought that I was familiar with the subject, and I did not like to interrupt the hon. Member because I thought that he had prepared his piece. But sometimes one gets into trouble when one prepares one's case only from one newspaper. That was not what was said in the questionnaire, at all. The news agency put the question:
If the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France agreed to postpone the establishment of a separate Western German state pending a meeting, of the Council of Foreign Ministers to consider the German problem as a whole, would the Government of the U.S.S.R. be prepared to remove the restrictions which the Soviet authorities have imposed on communications between Berlin and the Western zones of Germany.
One would think that that in itself was a fairly conditional inquiry, but the answer goes further and says:
Provided the United States of America, Great Britain and France observe the conditions set forth in the third question, the Soviet Government sees no obstacle to lifting the transport restrictions on the understanding, however, that transport and trade restrictions introduced by the three Powers should be lifted simultaneously.
That can hardly be described as a spontaneous and generous offer to end the Berlin situation provided there is agreement to restore Four-Power control of that city. Moreover it disposes, I think, of one thing. To the best of my recollection the reason for the blockade of Berlin arose initially, as we were told, on technical difficulties. There is mention here of Western Government, of the Council of Foreign Ministers, of currency, of trade, of blockades, but there is no mention of the technical difficulties in that question, which was the initial reason given to us over the Berlin situation.
Despite the provocation offered, I do not want to plunge myself into such an extravagant reply as the presentation of this case almost taunts me to make. It is not very clear what should be the rôle of His Majesty's Government in this situation; but it is quite certain that if we are to make a just assessment of this new development, the House will have to answer at least three most obvious questions which any intelligent person will ask himself about the subject, but to none of which the hon. Members for Mile End and Finsbury addressed themselves, although I should admit that the hon. Member for Finsbury did so partially.
First, we must ask ourselves why, if this offer were meant as a positive contribution towards diplomatic proceedings, towards relieving tension, and towards creating conditions of peace, this strange device was chosen by which probably half the world knew about the invitation before the President of the United States, to whom it was directed, had himself received it—if indeed he ever received it. I have no doubt that it was brought to his attention by agencies and correspondents; he no doubt read it in the newspapers; but for all we know, he never received the invitation which, we are told, was directed at him.
The hon. Member for Mile End said that this was an informal proceeding and that we should not be put off by its informality. I am very doubtful about that. Is it informal to solicit a questionnaire; to choose this questionnaire as the one to which an answer should be given; to see that it has world-wide circulation; and to have a following-up campaign of publicity and propaganda turned on the next day? That can hardly be called an informal proceeding. There are many adjectives that could be applied. Some people might think it impertinent; some people might think it shrewd; it certainly is an unusual proceeding, but it cannot be called an informal one, as did the hon. Member.
I am afraid that most people will come to the conclusion that, had that invitation been really meant for President Truman, the Soviet Government would have employed the devices which are normally employed in conveying a message from the head of one State to another. The Soviet Government are


well equipped for the purpose; their diplomatic machinery is without rival in size, and has among its members distinguished, well-known figures who have access to whichever Member of the Government they want to reach. The Soviet Government have never failed to employ them for that purpose when they wanted to do so.
The second question I imagine people will want to ask is on the peculiar timing of the message. It was not done by accident. We know that by the follow-up. We know that many questionnaires of this kind are submitted: that is almost the normal practice in Moscow. This one was selected at a particular time. Why was it selected? The probable reason—the only reason that looks obvious—is because the critical and important negotiations dealing with the Atlantic Pact were getting to a well-shaped, well-defined point where we could hope for success. If may even be that the Soviet's small, valiant, honest, forthright neighbour Norway was moving up to take a decision upon this same subject. But it certainly looks as if it must be related to the Atlantic Pact.
The hon. Member for Mile End says that the Atlantic Pact is an illegal proceeding. Let me quote a sentence from Article 52 of the United Nations Charter:
Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action.
That is plain enough. Moreover, if authority in international dealings is required, it is abundantly provided by the organisation which has taken place between the Soviet Union and other countries behind the Iron Curtain.

Mr. Piratin: Mr. Piratin rose——

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry, but I want to make one more point. I cannot see any further reason why it was done unless it was designed to improve the morale of some of the Eastern European countries. The other two possible reasons as I have said were Norway and the near conclusion of the Atlantic Pact.
The third question to ask, of course, is why it was directed exclusively to President Truman. I think it plain that neither the United States nor President Truman have ever made any claim that

there were international subjects in their exclusive possession. One must ask oneself what subjects, which might be interpreted as being a danger to international peace, lie exclusively between the United States and Soviet Russia. It is not Berlin. That subject is on the agenda of the United Nations. A solution was offered for Berlin to which only the Soviet Union with her veto and one other Power objected. It is not a treaty with Germany. Provision is already made for that. It is not the Japanese treaty, because provision is made for that, too. As with the German treaty, the major Powers have the greatest say, but we have insisted that other countries, including our own Commonwealth countries and Burma, who played such a major part in the Japanese war, should be consulted.
It could not have been Berlin, nor the German or Japanese treaties. It could not have been disarmament because it is on the agenda of the United Nations and the machinery is there ready to function. It could not have been atomic energy, because the machinery is there also. All that is needed to go into action on any of these matters is a single word from the Soviet Union that she is prepared to stop the obstructionist attitude of the past two years, and these two important commissions will start immediately. It is a nasty thought to think, but it may be that it was to display to some of the small Powers which are our friends and allies, that the Soviet Union and the United States were masters of the world. I hope that is wrong, because it is inaccurate.
There is one other thing I want to say. It was not any consolation to the small countries and to such peace-loving people as ourselves to indicate that the United States and the Soviet Union could find a peace basis. Such a basis was already announced long ago in most solemn terms in these words:
All members shall refrain in their international relation from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
That is an article of the U.N. Charter to which the Soviet Union as well as our-selves have subscribed. That remains the policy of His Majesty's Government. There have been no lack of meetings.


They have been endless in the last three years. What is lacking is an indication to co-operate, to see the other person's point of view, a willingness to end all the barriers, physical and diplomatic. Whatever the Soviet Union wants that she will publish, but she does not need to publish this. She can give the slightest indication to the tiniest sub-committee of

the United Nations and the Council of Foreign Ministers when she wants so to do, and she can do it by the abundant diplomatic machinery available for the purpose.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.